Peacebuilding and Normalization

I am going a conference tomorrow & Saturday that is sponsored by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. The abstract looks weighty and I'm looking forward to networking with the other participants.

Peace work on the ground here is very tricky. There is a significant contingent on both sides that feels that there can be no dialogue with the other. There are Israelis who don't want to talk about making peace when there are Qassams flying from Gaza. There are Palestinians (and a fair number of international activists) who feel that engagement with Israelis while there is an occupation is tantamount to submission to or collaboration with oppression. The term they use is "normalization" which refers to having normal relations with Israelis, rather than isolating them or penalizing them for their actions.

My personal take on it as an international, (and not just any international, but as a citizen of the USA), is that internationals have an obligation to engage with Israelis, and that engagement is not normalization, it's diplomatic conflict resolution, and it's also recognition that not everyone supports the actions of their elected leaders and wants to see a policy change.

My government (much to my chagrin) gives a lot of money and weapons to Israel every year which allows it to to perpetuate an occupation, and in addition to money and weapons, it also gives an incredible amount of diplomatic support to Israel when others on the world stage criticize Israel for its occupation. I disagree with that sort of support to Israel and lobby my elected officials accordingly, but If I can't change my government's actions in the short-term, then the only remaining choice I have is to engage with the reality on the ground.

In my opinion, engaging with the reality on the ground is two-fold:

1. Dealing with the reality of occupation
2. Trying to end the occupation

To me, dealing with the reality of occupation means doing the best you can to improve the quality of life for people on the ground. The international community pours a lot of aid into Palestine, especially the West Bank, perhaps too much. It's unevenly distributed and seems highly concentrated around Ramallah. It also sometimes seems like the EU and the US give aid to Palestinians so that they can absolve themselves from the guilt that they don't put much pressure on Israel to end the occupation, which is the primary reason the situation is bad enough to warrant it.

Trying to end it means using non-violent resistance and all legal and diplomatic channels at your disposal in order to shake off the occupation. I have friends who think that armed resistance is okay and that a revolution is in order; my take is that even if occupied people have a right to resist occupation, in such an asymmetrical battle, guns are the worst possible means of resistance.

I think it would make far more sense (as has proven to be the case in most of the small victories that have been made, Bil'in for example), for Palestinians to align with Israelis who seek to end the occupation, even if the only thing they agree on is that ending the occupation is desireable. Most Israelis don't want to see a one state solution and many struggle with the question of whether an injustice was done to the Palestinians in 1948 & 1967, so there is a parting of ways after the occupation issue is resolved, but if an alliance with Israelis only accomplished that objective, it seems like it would be worthwhile strategically. Would it not? Sometimes you have to take interim steps towards your goals.