Stand Up for Sit Downs, the Answer to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

By Zach Seeskin
Brandeis University

The Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly on all of our minds as Jews in the modern world. We are proud to have a nation where we can celebrate Judaism, enjoy full religious freedom and reclaim our history. Yet, it is sad that the entirety of Israel’s existence has been met with violence from its Arab neighbors, with no end to the bloodshed in sight. I would like to offer my opinion that the efforts that must be made to end the conflict should come from grassroots movements aiming to transform Arab and Israeli mindsets alike.

The tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict are caused by the mindsets of people on both sides. As long as these mindsets exist, no matter what happens politically, true peace cannot be achieved. Both sides are grounded in ideologies based on, at best, distrust and, at worst, hatred toward one another. These ideologies stem from the histories of the people. Palestinian attitudes and rhetoric comes from a belief that their land was stolen from them, first by colonial powers in Turkey and Great Britain, then by Israel. They believe the entire land should belong to them. The Israeli mindset has been affected by constant attacks and violence since the beginning of its existence. Jews came to the land to escape persecution, but arrived only to be greeted with hate. Israel learned quickly that strong military action was necessary to protect itself. Both sides have good reason to hold their attitudes. But ultimately, they must learn to appreciate that the other side has a reason for its claim to the land too. They must use this as a point for reconciliation. But if the sides continue to only see the conflict from their own point of view, then there is no hope for peace.

There has been a strong effort to end the conflict through negotiations, especially in the past fifteen years. However, when those at the highest of level of government engage in negotiations, they do not include the citizens in the process of reconciliation. For example, the peace treaties in Egypt and Jordan are tremendous political accomplishments of Israeli leaders. Yet, they did little to change Israel’s relationships with these countries, as the attitudes of the people toward one another still remains cold. The ideologies of the Arab and Israeli peoples are so deeply ingrained that much of the process of negotiation has been impeded by them. For example, the Syrian peace talks in 1996 and in 1999 failed both times because Israeli leaders were hindered by the mindsets of their publics, who were distrustful of the Syrians. The leaders could not move forward for fear of losing power with a public who was not in favor of peace. A common interpretation of why the Camp David and Taba peace talks of 2000 and 2001 failed was because the Palestinian people were stuck in a mindset that could not acknowledge Israel’s permanent existence. Though we will never know what Yasser Arafat’s true intentions were, we know that he could not risk making an agreement that would cause him to lose the trust of his people. Time and time again, politicians have tried to negotiate first and win the minds and hearts of the people second. But it has never worked.

Israel has now reached an important point in its history. With elections coming up in March, with the arrival of the new political party Kadima and with its leader Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ill, there are many questions about what kind of leadership will emerge. The new leadership must recognize that the recent trend of using unilateral action cannot lead to a true solution to the conflict. The disengagement from Gaza and the construction of the barrier along the West Bank are recent examples of unilateral decisions made by the Israeli government. It is understandable that Israeli leaders would seek to ensure the country’s security through these means, making unilateral decisions in frustration because there has been no viable Palestinian peace partner. Yet, unilateral political decisions harden ideologies and provide an excuse for hatred, as there is no process of cooperation. Long into the future, it is conceivable that these efforts might lead to a political solution of two independent states, but unilaterally separating the peoples in this way can never lead to true peace and true neighborliness. Instead, more creative methods, methods that transform ideologies instead of hardening them, must be explored for creating warmer relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

In history, peaceful solutions to conflicts have often come from grassroots action. The best example of this is the American Civil Rights Movement. At first, political solutions were attempted. Organizations like the NAACP fought for equal rights in the courts. In the early 1960s, Congress passed a number of pieces of legislation to promote equality. But none of these political actions are truly responsible for people’s changes in attitude. This is not to discount the importance of the political action, but it was nowhere near enough. What caught people’s attention were the protests and demonstrations. When citizens used creative, yet peaceful, modes of action to bring civil rights issues into the nation’s spotlight, the public’s mindset changed. When we think of the success of the civil rights movement, we do not think of Brown v. Board of Education or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We think of boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides and the March on Washington. These grassroots actions won the hearts and minds of the people.

Grassroots organizations are beginning to take hold in Israel. Two in particular, One Voice and The People’s Voice (Hamifkad Haleumi), have joined Israeli and Palestinian citizens together to advocate a two-state solution through nonviolent means. These two organizations have developed their own Statements of Principles, spelling out their vision for the steps that must be taken for peace. Israelis and Palestinians have cooperated to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions and shared their vision with their governments. Other initiatives have included classes of tolerance that include joint activities being introduced in Israeli and Palestinian schools. Though in the news we hear so much about the extremists on both sides, there is a strong voice emerging from the people calling for tolerance and peace. Through the work of these organizations, children are becoming more educated about the conflict and more cooperation occurs among the people from both sides. As these groups continue to become more creative in their work, the government will understand the people’s desire for peace, and extremists will be pushed to the fringes of the political picture. These efforts are the beginning of the work that will require persistence, dedication, and creativity. But education and grassroots action are by far the best way of changing the mindsets on both sides of the conflict and provide the best hope for a solution.