Printer Friendly

Gracious dialogue.

The issues between Israel and the Arab world have been festering for close to a century. Building a wall or stationing American or UN troops in Israel will not address the issues that have inflamed the region for so many decades. Israel is at war with the Palestinians and the Arab world. The potential for a wider regional confrontation is very real. UN resolutions will not end the fighting and the killing. This conflict can only be resolved if the parties involved engage in appropriate dialogue.

Western-style diplomacy does not work in the Middle East. Unless negotiators understand and utilize the Arab mindset, any discussions will be futile. Further complicating matters is the simple fact that what is essentially a brutal street fight without rules cannot be fought or even contemplated in the context of Marquess of Queensberry conditions. Still another impediment to peace is the unbalanced standard of morality, decency, and integrity that only Israel is expected to maintain in the face of unspeakable horror, butchery, and amorality.

This is a conflict that can only end when the involved parties themselves really want it to end. The dynamics of dialogue, suggested by Dr. Marc Silverman of the Samuel Melton Center at Hebrew University, offer an approach. This analysis works for married couples, as well as for feuding nations, or others engaged in conflict resolution.

There are four types of dialogue. The first is called Negation Dialogue. In this type of dialogue, the parties view each other as a threat. Therefore they negate the "other" via stereotype, dehumanization, and even demonization. We see this in the antisemitic rantings of certain Muslim clerics, and calls for jihad. It is present in media coverage of "the occupying forces" and other incitable and unbalanced reportage. We see it in the calls for "transfer" of all Arabs, the razing of Arab homes, and in non-recognition of legitimate Palestinian aspirations. Clearly this form of dialogue is not productive.

The second type of dialogue is called Domination Dialogue. It is based on a fundamental non-acceptance of the "other." Both sides neither recognize nor validate each other. However, they enter into dialogue with the avowed purpose of feigned relationship-building in order to convert the "other" to their point of view. Arab propaganda has been especially successful with this format. Palestinian representatives negotiate while teenagers blow themselves up at public malls. Arafat says one thing in English to appease the world press, and quite another in his speeches in Arabic to his Arabic audience. The insignia worn by Arafat, and which appears in every textbook and on every terrorist group's patch, is the outline not of Gaza and the West Bank but of the entire State of Israel. Israeli security chiefs carry on dialogues with their Palestinian counterparts while curfews and evictions continue. Humiliation and torture of Palestinians is rationalized. Arab reconstruction and fictionalization of Jewish history is apparent on every talking-head television interview. Many failed summits attest to the weakness of this approach. Domination Dialogue will not yield positive results.

The third form of dialogue is Compartmentalization. This exchange involves keeping one's distance, while jockeying for position. The parties display respect for one another at arm's length. This dialogue maintains the conflict and does not yield any synthesis. The Saudi peace plan and the various US envoys' attempts at triage represent compartmentalization. Sound bytes from Israel and the PLO about the need for peace or pleas to just get along from various leaders are examples of compartmentalization. Calls for new leadership and more summits are only delay tactics. Mainly, it represents just empty words without any real commitment to do anything concrete.

The fourth form of dialogue is called Gracious Dialogue. These exchanges are normative, not descriptive. Gracious Dialogue offers an opportunity for growth and progress, since each side confers dignity, respect, and validity on the other. It is a dialogue between equals. If the PLO and the Arab nations were to really recognize the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty, and if Israel were to accept Palestinian self-determination, then peace might become a possibility. If the parties directly involved in the dispute were to validate each other's point of view, strife might be converted to positive energy. If there were a true recognition of realistic security measures, if terrorists would turn in their weapons, if Jewish settlements in Arab communities could live safely, if Israel had a partner it could trust, if Palestinians were treated with respect, etc.

These ideals are quite lofty, and perhaps unrealistic, given the history and pathos of these battles. Everyone has a passionate point of view about the Mideast conflict. What is also clear is that no long-term solution is in sight. American intervention will not resolve the core issues of trust and sovereignty. Issues of relative right and wrong are irrelevant. Historical accuracy is also irrelevant. Neither side in the struggle will be swayed by words or tanks. There is no verifiable truth in the face of facts on the ground. Western modes of thinking and negotiating do not work in this scenario. Deeply felt cultural issues of displacement, saving face, honor, and dignity, on the one side, and security, survival, age-old yearnings, and the maintenance of a certain image of strength on the other, must be dealt with by the two sides. Perhaps Ararat and Sharon are not the ones who can pull this off.

Real, gut wrenching concessions to reality must be made by both sides. Without Gracious Dialogue and the conferring of legitimacy and status on the other, the conflict will continue to destroy the land and the people in it.

If is such a small but powerful word.

Does this scenario have a foundation in reality? Can/Will Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate and to glory in killing Jews? Can/Will Palestinians and their ilk give up the hope of eliminating Israel from the map? Will Israelis ever trust Ararat? Can/Will Israel acknowledge Palestinian aspirations? Can the children of Abraham live together in peace?

We cannot wish the conflict away. Jews have their truth and the Palestinians have theirs. All the arguments about why Israel should retain all the land and the historical fact that the Palestinians and the Arab world have created this mess are correct. However, people are getting killed on a regular basis. The world cannot intervene and solve this problem. If objective truth gets in the way of reality, then peace is a long, long way off. Crisis intervention and conflict resolution require Gracious Dialogue, or else the crisis and the conflict will continue.

WALIACE GREENE is the Director of Jewish Educational Services for the UJA Federation of Bergen and N. Hudson Counties in New Jersey, and the Executive Secretary of the Alisa Flatow Memorial Scholarship Fund. He holds a doctorate in Jewish history and has taught at Yeshiva University, Queens College CUNY, and at Upsala College in New Jersey.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Theodor Herzl Foundation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Middle East conflict
Author:Greene, Wallace Martin
Geographic Code:7ISRA
Date:Feb 1, 2003
Previous Article:In the Market (a segment from "A Captive of Jerusalem").
Next Article:Rebekah, the Womb and Paradise. (Poetry).

Related Articles
I brought peace to Northern Ireland.. now let me end the slaughter in the Middle East; EXCLUSIVE: JOHN HUME'S TALKS PLEDGE.
Israeli-Romanian Relations at the End of the Ceausescu Era.
Adams to urge talks for peace.
The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia and Pelosi Mideast powerbrokers?
Pakistan, India provide an example for the Middle East on how to hold a dialogue.
Radical solutions needed to resolve global conflicts.
Morocco has 'millennium tradition' of interreligious dialogue, Parliament of World's Religions.
George Mitchell hails Morocco's 'leadership, commitment' to peace in Middle-East.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters