"Mediators"

All those Jews, Palestinians, Egyptions, Americans, Europeans, - on all levels, from simple citizens to decision-makers - who know, that it is in their own interest, -not to support one party against the other,' - but to help both peoples reconcile their interests.

"Initiators"

Some people, who belong to the Israeli Arab-Jewish organisation "Partnership", but who now cooperate with whoever wants to take an active part in mediating. Their political concept, based on "Self-determination", i.e. "Taking-responsibility-for-my-destiny" , comprises a goal and a way, which have been tested for five years, while the organisation worked on the level of "infra-stsructure", creating models of solving objective and psychological problems of the conflict.

Decision- makers

While effective politcal work has to integrate three levels - infra-structure, public opinion, decision-makers - this initiative - inspired by the break-through caused by Sadat - aims at the decision-makers only, i.e. a stratum of about 50-150 people on either side.

Purpose of Approaching You: So far any political solution has been rejected by either side. We talk about the 3 million Jews of Israel and about 3 million Palestinians living today in the Middle-East, inside and outside the '67-borders of Israel. The aim of this political initiative is, therefore, not to suggest another solution, but to bring about an act, which would cause At this stage of The Initiative, July 1980, we ask your feed-back and advice with concern to the following question:

Though the effect of Sadat's initiative faded away, since it did not concern the crux of the conflict, - might it be possible, that one spectacular exemplary act would also shortcut the process between Palestinians and Jews? - particularly if this time the motivation of "trying out additional choices" would not be casual, but conceptualized by the initiating as well as by the respondent party?

Before you try to answer, please check, if our analysis of the problem and our criteria for a solution in general - are helpful to you. If the general idea appeals to you, wel'll ask questions concerning the operational part.

In analysing Four Basic Factors in Politics -

- we find the following data with concern to the two peoples:

A. INTERESTS of either people:

a) to realize or preserve national self-determination
on the territory of Israel/Palestine;

b) to invest resources in developing society not army.

Yet:
Instead of consistently striving for their over-all interest,
both keep clashing about "rights' and "positions".

 

B. DEPENDENCY between both peoples:

Seventy years of harming each other have proven, that -

a) neither can achieve or preserve this interest without the other's consent.
This makes them dependent on each other;

b) neither has the power to get rid of this dependency,
by trying to annihilate or to weaken or to dominate the other.

Though evaluations of our persons of reference vastly differ from each other - some of them, Jews and Palestinians, believe, that the Palestinians are already stronger than Israel and time works for them anyway, while others, Palestinians and Jews, believe, that Israel has all the power.- We clearly see a Balance of Power. This does NOT exist between Jews and Arabs INSIDE '67-Israel, which diminuishes the chances of solving their probelm seperately.

Yet:
Instead of facing this fact of mutual dependency,
both still try to ignore or get rid of it.

 

C. POWER of self-determined people:

Neither has the power to get rid of this dependency,
but if they believe in self-determination,
there is another CHOICE:

If they would believe in self-determination,
i.e. in their power to turn a harmful dependency into a partnership,
they would device and check
every statement, every action, every proposal of a polical solution
According to these three criteria:

a)Does, what I say and do, prove to the other,
that my interest is his interest too?

b) Does, what I say and do, help him trust me,
and cause him to help me trust him?

c) Does, what I say and do, create equal conditions
as well as equality of self-respect?

Yet
Instead of actualizing their power of self-determination,
both still cling to what we call their "victim-role":
A victim sees no choices.
It has but one alternative - to succumb or to hit back.

 

D. VALUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION:

Is not the highest value of both peoples' "self-determination?"

Does not "self-determination" mean - to be responsible for achieving my interests?

How can I achieve my interests, if I don't take responsibility for my dependencies?
(even if the balance of power should be in favor of the other part!)

Yet
Instead of living up to their value of self-determination,
both still perceive themselves as victims:
'Unless you, my enemy, take the first step
(recognize me, give up terror, give up territories, etc.)'
I, poor powerless, unfree Me, have no choice but to fight."

 

Conclusion
or
Direction of Action for the Mediator

Unless people understand "self-determination"
as taking unconditional responsibility for achieving their INTERESTS,
any polical solution suggested by anybody,
will for ever be rejected by either side as "contradicting our positions".
Manipulations of the Camp-David kind
[see my meeting with Roger Fisher]
might momentarily force the parties into an agreement,
but it will fall apart once the parties face a new obstacle and again claim:
'Unless you, my enemy, do this or that, I can't do anything.'

Therefore, what each of us potential mediators has to work on today,
is not, how to suggest a better political SOLUTION,

But HOW can "victims' change into "self-determined people"?
Since there is no time for education of therapy
(though we'll have to follow up with these later)
we should bring about
what in a person's life and in peoples' history
has always been the fastest way to change:

 

THE EXAMPLARY ACT ; SCENARIO OF ITS EFFECT

The idea is,
that "mediators" would identify and approach
the crucial decision-makers among one or both parties,
and cause them, by whatever means would be effective,
to practically adopt this interpretation of self-determination,
by initiating one spectacular, examplary act,
which would cause the two peoples

What would happen?
Like after Sadat's visit to Jerusalem
people - from kindergardens to governments - would say:

 

This break-through
of in their OWN power
and of in the OTHER's acting According to laws of human nature -
could be the psychological condition for both peoples
to embark on the systematical PROCESS of solving together
the objective and psychologcal problems of their conflict.

As to the "Political Solution":
There are many options on the table today,
with concern to borders, territories and forms of government.
whatever option seems to serve the interest of either side -
even "greater Israel", even "A secular Democratic State",
can serve as a starting point,
IF
- the decision-makers stick to
the MOTIVATION OF SELF-DETERMINATION
"I have the power to achieve my interests,
by turning an unavoidable harmful dependency into a partnership";
and IF
the decision-makers devise or check their proposals and procedures
According to the THREE CRITERIA OF A PARTNERHSIP-RELATIONSHIP
"Does what I say and do, further
common interest,
mutual trust
and equality of self-respect?"

 

ASKING ADVICE FROM THE POTENTIAL MEDIATOR:

If

make sense to you, would you help us with the operational questions?

a) What party is likely to be the first to get out of the victim-role?

b) Who would be efficient mediators to cause her to initiate such an act?

c) What means, besides "trying to convince rationally", might be effective?

d) What criteria and ideas do you have with concern to the content of the act?

 

APPENDIX

- Script of what might happen

-Summarized feed-back from "potential mediators" interviewed so far.

If you want a script of what will change,
once the emotional break-through will get people started
to actualize self-determination,
here are examples of four stages:

a) Data-Gathering-and-Interpretation:

For so many years people believed: "the other doesn't want to".
Beliefs tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Whatever was said or done by the other party,
was selected and interpreted as a confirmation of this belief.

Only people who are determlned to turn a harmful dependency into a partnership,
will see their INTEREST -
in watching out for all those statements, behavoirs and actions of the enemy,
which could be considered as "rational breaches in the wall of irrationality".
WhenSadat said;
"I want to come",
one Israeli statesman [Shim'on Peres! addition in 2002] interpreted:
"OH, that's just another trick!"
while Begin - obviously prepared for this by mediators, said:
"Welcome",
giving the rational breach a chance.

b) Direct Talks:
For so many years well-meaning people have demanded direct talks.
Only people who are determined to turn a harmful dependency into a partnership,
will see their INTEREST -
in making direct contact with the party
which they want to turn into a partner,
as fast as possible.

c) Stopping Injustices and Provocations:
For so many years the injustices and provocations done by either side,
have been condemned, retaliated.
Only people who are determined to turn a harmful dependency into a partnership,
will see their INTEREST -
in avoiding any word or action,
that might undermine the trust of the other party,
like hostile propaganda,
confiscating land,
terror,
evictions,
"settlements", etc.

d) National Self-determination for Palestinian - Security for Israel:
For so many years people ping-pong with the rights of either side.
Only people who are determined to turn a harmful dependency into a partnership,
will see their INTEREST -
in creating trust
(which is the best base for SECURITY),
and in devising political mechanisms, that would guarantee
EQUAL expressions of NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION and
EQUAL distribution of RESOURCES to both partners.

The "Political Solutions' they'll come up with in the end,
might be much better than any of the options discussed today.

 

If you need specific CRITERIA to activate your intuition and imagination
with concern to the operational questions of "Initiative 1980",
here is a summary of what has crystallized so far,
following meetings with about thirty personalities
(Except for 5 meetings with groups
-"Partnership" and the Jerusalem "Bet-Hillel" Arab-Jewish Student group-
the talks were organized with one or two,
never more than with three personalities.
Some of them we saw twice,
like the Egyptian ambassador)

 

1) Possible criteria for devising the "exemplary Act":

a) If the act would be initiated by the Palestinians,
the content should be,
to cause a breach in the emotional barrier of traumatic distrust on the Jewish side
(something that would be equivalent to cancelling the "Palestinian Covenant",
Or even to replacing terror by non-violent action for a limited period);

b) If the act would be initiated by the Israeli Jews,
the content should be to prove to the Palestinians
that the Jews want them to be EQUAL
(something that would be equivalent to at least talking
to whoever is considered today as a representative of the Palestinian people
- as to the potential equal partner).

c) The act will have its future rewards -
be creating the psychological climate
for starting a process towards solution.
But it should also endow its initiators with immediate rewards,
like increased morale and self-respect at home, and the cheering of the world.

2) Possible criteria for assuming
that the Palestinians will want to be the party to start;

a) They are considered the "objective"victim,
which gives them a lower status than the Jews.
Since a partnership-relationship must be based on equality,
they would - by taking the first step - not only actualize self-determination,
but also prove to themselves, to Israel and to the world:
We    a r e    equal!
we are even able to take the initiative!
(The Jews among us say this with pain,
seeing that little is left of the original essence of Zionism,
i.e. "We are masters of our destiny"...)

b) They seem to be more realistic
in facing their dependency on the Jews than vice versa.
They seem to realize already,
that they can reach their national interest only if the Jews let them:
"We are stuck with the Jews",
said Abu Ayyad.
Many of the Jews still ignore the fact,
that they cannot preserve their national interest
unless the Palestinians let them.

c) Psychologically it seems,
as if the Palestinians are going to win something,
while the Jews   s e e m   to loose something.
So it's easier for the former to start.

Yet, as mediators, we take advice from both:
Which one of you, do you think, has the power to initiate such an act?

3)Possible criteria for efficient mediators;

a) They should have a reputation of not supporting one side against the other,
but of wanting both peoples to reconcile their interests.

b) They should be capable of imagination and flexibility
in using every possible means,
combination of means,
coordination between different steps, taken by different mediators,
in order to identify and win over the most crucial decision-makers
on the side of the chosen party
as well as on the side of the party that will have to respond properly.

4) Additional Activities;

some people doubt the effectiveness of a one-time act.
They suggest - initiating events that would help people    e n v i s i o n ,
what it means to devise a policy According to the THREE CRITERIA,
for instance

 

2003_06_26
REVIEW

As the last endeavor was a political initiative, so was the first one.
I'll only guard the first of 8 pages, both in Hebrew and in Ibrahim Simaan's translation into Arabic.

There are two main differences between the program of 1975 and the program of 1980

1. This first plan assumes that Israel would be the active part,
but since during those 6 years the Palestinians reached the balance of power
(neither can kill or dominate the other, nor get rid of the dependency on the other)
they can be active just as well, or even be the initiators.
This equality as a starting point will accelerate and favour the process.

2. The Palestinian State, propagated in the first program,
is not the only possible geopolitical mechanism to guarantee a relationship of partnership,
especially since it does not take into Account the 600 000 (?) Palestinians
who today are citizens of Israel,
- leave alone the "emotional barriers" on the Jewish side.
But it looks, as if this stage of an independent statehood can not be skipped.

Another difference between the first and the last document is,
that the first program served as entry document to all kinds of Jews and Arabs inside Israel only,
while the second program was delivered and discussed and modified and again delivered
to a number of politicians of the second rank,
both in the State of Israel and in occupied Palestine.
The outstanding experience was our visit to the Mayor of Nablous,
whose leg had just been smashed by an act of hostility.

But then, towards the end of August, all my work in "Partnership" came to an end,
because the situation in my home has suddenly matured towards ~~~ leaving it~~~

In January 1981 I asked the Committee of Partnership to let me go.