I recently had the chance to moderate an event where Ghaith Al-Omari spoke. Al-Omari, as the Executive Director of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), occupies a somewhat unique position in the complex web of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After studying law in the US, Jordanian-born Al-Omari eventually moved to Ramallah to serve as advisor to Mahmoud Abbas and has served as negotiator at Camp David and the Taba talks. While this certainly gives him a degree of street cred, the ATFP does not have a wide mandate among Palestinians, and specifically among Palestinians in the United States, where ATFP operates as a DC-based non-profit advocating for a two-state solution, and is seen by many as out of step with the tide, particularly in their opposition to the bid for Palestinian statehood in the UN General Assembly. All that said, Al-Omari has years of wisdom to share with our group and one comment is sticking with me.
He said that when he started as a negotiator, he was working towards a happy marriage. He saw the future, if distant, as one where Palestinians and Israelis would live in mutual harmony, sharing peaceful borders and with some degree of kumbaya. Today he says he no longer works towards this vision. Instead he just hopes to push for divorce--Israelis and Palestinians in separate states and a cold peace. He sees the challenge right now as dealing with two angry partners arguing over who gets the car and who gets the country home. Al-Omari is not alone in his thinking. Amos Oz has called for a “fair, if painful, divorce” and Yair Lapid, chairman of the new Israeli political party Yesh Atid says “We're not looking for a happy marriage with the Palestinians, but for a divorce agreement we can live with.”
What does this mean for the myriad dialogue programs working with Israelis and Palestinians? And for so many other peacebuilding programs working towards that elusive happy marriage? Should they shift their efforts towards a divorce? What would that mean for their programming? And, perhaps most importantly, are these efforts at odds with each other? Or is there room for those of us working towards Galtung’s positive peace between Israelis and Palestinians in the midst of the messy divorce?
Perhaps our place in the metaphor is with the children who still need space to play, process and grow, while their parents argue over who gets to keep the stock options. What do you think?
He said that when he started as a negotiator, he was working towards a happy marriage. He saw the future, if distant, as one where Palestinians and Israelis would live in mutual harmony, sharing peaceful borders and with some degree of kumbaya. Today he says he no longer works towards this vision. Instead he just hopes to push for divorce--Israelis and Palestinians in separate states and a cold peace. He sees the challenge right now as dealing with two angry partners arguing over who gets the car and who gets the country home. Al-Omari is not alone in his thinking. Amos Oz has called for a “fair, if painful, divorce” and Yair Lapid, chairman of the new Israeli political party Yesh Atid says “We're not looking for a happy marriage with the Palestinians, but for a divorce agreement we can live with.”
What does this mean for the myriad dialogue programs working with Israelis and Palestinians? And for so many other peacebuilding programs working towards that elusive happy marriage? Should they shift their efforts towards a divorce? What would that mean for their programming? And, perhaps most importantly, are these efforts at odds with each other? Or is there room for those of us working towards Galtung’s positive peace between Israelis and Palestinians in the midst of the messy divorce?
Perhaps our place in the metaphor is with the children who still need space to play, process and grow, while their parents argue over who gets to keep the stock options. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment