Saturday, October 8, 2011

Overture: On why I am where I am

If someone had asked me five years ago where I thought I would be after college and what I would be doing, my answer would have been very different from the current reality. While there is nothing unique about this (how many people can honestly say that they predicted their life's path with even reasonable accuracy and even over a short number of years) I do think that my predictions would have been wrong by a far greater margin than the average person's. True, international relations has always been of great interest to me, but it has always been to Europe that I have directed my focus. That I, a non-Jew, non-Arab, and fairly agnostic/non-religious person would end up spending a year in the 'Holy Land' would have been unthinkable.

Why, then, am I here? In college I never felt comfortable in any particular academic niche. There were classes that I liked, but none that particularly spoke to me. Then the summer between my Junior and Senior years I took an intensive class titled: Conflict Resolution - the Israeli Palestinian Experiment taught by two phenomenal professors, Edy Kaufman (an American-Israeli Jew) and Manuel Hassassian (a Palestinian Christian). The course was both an intensive study of the history of the conflict, as well as some practical role plays of conflict resolution in action (and yes, we did yell at each other quite a bit). From there, I was hooked.

One of the most important things, for me, about the conflict, is the fact that it does not directly affect me. That's not really true - it affects me just as it affects all people of the world, but since I am not Jewish or Arab it doesn't affect the very core of my being. If this corner of the world suddenly vanished tomorrow I would be terribly sad, but I would get over it. I know that is not the case for many people in the conflict, and for many people around the world. My relationship to the conflict is like the relationship between friends or spouses: it is chosen and could conceivably be terminated. It is not like the relationship between a parent and child where there is an inseparable bond between the two. By no means does this make me impartial or neutral (anyone who knows me knows that I am the least neutral person ever with an opinion on absolutely everything!), but it does allow me to approach the conflict with fewer preconceived notions, and, I believe it also allows me to develop a multi-partial approach that will serve the interests of all parties best.

Another reason I am here, is because I loath politicians who legislate and debate on subjects that they have no real knowledge of other than what some lobbyist has put into a speech or postion paper. I rather doubt that I would ever want to be a politician (and plus, given the fact that I have actual opinions I am quite unelectable!) but I do know that I will always be involved in some aspect of the political process my entire life. That's just the political party animal in me! Therefore, if I am to feel at all comfortable advising or in any other way influencing politics I need to have this experience (and probably a good deal more). Studying a subject is important, but living it is far more useful.

Since studying conflict resolution in general and the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts in particular, I have come up with a few core assumption on which I base my worldview. It will be interesting to see if they change over the course of the year. Some may seem incredibly naive, but I think as long as I recognise that there is a kind of innocence and naiveté and am realistic about them, that such an approach is not a bad one. These assumption are:

1) No human is evil. Yes, humans do horrible, terrible, even evil things. Depending on your point of view, Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, or, Bush can all be seen as 'evil'. It is certainly true that all these people have helped to create situations where great evil has been done, but, contrary to the common belief that 'some people are just born evil' I think that all these people have created evil in the world as a response to their individual circumstances and not because of some in-bred moral defect. In no way am I excusing any of their actions (indeed, saying someone is just evil by nature lets them off the hook for many of their actions), rather I think it holds them to account for their past and future actions and leads me rather nicely to my next assumption.

2) No matter what someone has done, they can always reform. No, we can never replace the people killed in the Holocaust or in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no we can never take back the invasion of Iraq or the destruction of the attacks of 11 September, but the people who perpetrated those actions can/could have taken those evil actions and made good out of them. I firmly believe that anyone, no matter what horrible, terrible thing they have done, is still capable of redemption and of creating a positive influence in the world (even if only through the fact that they have shown us what not to do). This is not some religious redemption either, only to occur after death. I believe that they still have a valuable part to play in the world and that, rather than destroy their physical self and cover up their message, we must learn to work with them and by our example help them to achieve the necessary epiphany that what they are doing is wrong and must change. Yes, in some instances extreme force may be required, but in the vast majority of cases a non-violent response will be far more effective and powerful than any military action or economic sanction.

3) All problems are solvable. Maybe not in our lifetimes and maybe not in our children's lifetimes, but every single problem has not just one, but many solutions. These solutions may not be pretty or elegant, they may not be solutions that we like, and they may not even be solutions we think we can live with, but in time they will become apparent. Therefore it is incredibly important to keep an open mind and to never automatically discount any given suggestion, no matter how radical or crazy it may seem. That doesn't mean that we should give every pipe-dream solution a try, it just means that we shouldn't blow it off without a reasonable examination.

4) Peace is possible. The elimination of conflict is probably not possible (and also probably not desirable), but peace is. By peace, I mean not just an end to armed conflict between states and other non-state entities, and not just the elimination of war and terrorism, but also the end to systemic violence seen in the horrors of racism, sexism, poverty, religious extremism and the like. Do I expect to ever see this kind of peace? Absolutely not, but I have to believe it is possible. Managing conflict is massively important and a necessary step, but for me it is not enough unless conflict is managed with the end goal of real peace. That does not mean that true peace should be forced onto a society or conflict (the concept of 'forcing peace' is not really a tenable one), and it is certainly true that in my lifetime the best we can realistically hope for many conflicts is that they are well managed, but the end goal of peace must always be there. We have come to accept violence of all forms into our everyday lives: we need to realise that violence is never acceptable.

5) In violent conflict, change is always good. This sounds a bit problematic, since a conflict could seemingly change for the worse, but when it comes to conflict resolution and peacemaking I do believe that even if the rate of violence spikes, that can become a catalyst for eventual transformation of the conflict. Stagnation of a conflict only allows the two sides to further dig themselves into their positions and makes it all the harder to make progress. If a conflict is fluid it is far easier to affect positive change and progress a peace-oriented dialogue.

6) Every human being has a right to have their basic human needs fulfilled. The concept of 'human rights' is inherently flawed, since it is based in (usually Western) cultural norms. Human needs, on the other hand, are commonly shared by all humans. The standard basic human needs are control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality, and esteem, with one or two potential additions. All these needs allow for cultural influence and the unique perspectives that different groups may have, yet still will allow all the individuals in that society to live a fulfilled life. Of paramount importance for me in all of this is the concept of un-coerced rational consent: if a woman wants to wear a Burkha or a group of people want to live in a polygamous relationship I have no problems with that as long as everyone really truly consents to whatever situation they have entered in to. Doing something to another person without their consent is (in my opinion) simultaneously the only crime in the world and the worst crime in the world.

Future posts will start going into specifics about the conflict and about what I'm doing, but for now I hope this helps explain a little bit about why I'm here and what I'm hoping to do. Haifa is absolutely beautiful and everyone should visit if you get the chance!

Love to all,

JC

My view as I walk to class in the morning.