homepage / contents / part 1 / part 2 / back / next

Harmony gets a Chance in Israel

‘We are in a situation of total chaos, but this course has taught me a lot. I didn’t know the Palestinians’ world at all. I feel terribly upset.’ (Israeli teacher)

‘I don’t know where all this is heading. We must act and not just talk. The situation is so bad.’ (Palestinian teacher)

Two weeks before the encounter at which these voices were recorded, a bomb explosion in a Tel Aviv cafe and the resumption of building work at the Har Homa Jewish neighbourhood in disputed East Jerusalem, cast dark clouds over the peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians. Could teachers from the two sides still meet and discuss reconciliation? Or would external political developments poison the atmosphere?

In the event, although cancellation was briefly contemplated, the encounter took place. Part of a long-term course that brings together teachers from various schools in Israel and the Palestinian Autonomy, it was convened in the borderline Jerusalem Arab suburb of Ar-ram. Participants said the bombing and bulldozer activity had made them even more determined to proceed.

Thus while in the maelstrom that is the Middle East, words are usually shouted across a great divide, the above Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints were uttered by two teachers sitting in the same room. Their backgrounds no doubt influenced the perspectives they offered. But the fact that they could exchange views without having to raise their voices too high, was evidence of a revolution of sorts underway in Israel.

The Oslo Peace Process may be near rigor mortis; on the ground, ordinary Palestinians and Israelis are being encouraged to cross the ethnic, religious and political divide and explore reconciliation and dialogue in the face of the sometimes discouraging external political reality.

Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam is widely regarded as a beacon in this regard. Located on a hilltop in the region of Latrun, between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the co-operative village was founded in 1972 by Catholic priest Father Bruno on the principle that the two peoples and three religions in the region had enough common values for their members to develop a community together.

Mistrust and Misunderstanding Israel has fewer than six million people, more than 80 percent of whom are Jews, roughly 15 percent Muslim, 3 percent Christian and 2 percent Druze and other groups. Israeli Arabs form a minority ethnic group within the pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel. Many see themselves as Palestinians. And that remains the prevailing perception of them because they are ethnically, nationally, and religiously distinct from the Jewish majority population. They have voting and other rights, but are not completely trusted in terms of loyalty. Thus they have the awkward status of being within the State of Israel - and also being part of the Arab people with whom the Israeli government has a tortuous relationship. Israeli Jews form a majority ethnic group within the borders of the State of Israel but, in the wider Middle East, they feel themselves a beleaguered and isolated minority. Despite this ethnic equation, notes Mitchell G. Bard, writing in The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, ‘the level of hostility that exists between Jews and Palestinians from the territories does not pertain to relations with Arabs within the “Green Line” (i.e., those living inside the pre-1967 borders of the State).’ However, ‘mistrust and misunderstanding are characteristics of the relationship between Israeli Arabs and Jews.’

The village, or moshav, got its first permanent settlers in 1978-79 as part of a private grassroots initiative. It has since evolved into a member-owned and democratically-run independent small community, holding firmly to its objective of promoting peace with co-workers, neighbours, and individually. Jews and Arabs live together peacefully in Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam (or NS/WAS for short). In the words of researcher Grace Feuerverger, ‘Their goal is to create a social, cultural, and political framework of equality and mutual respect in which the residents maintain their own cultural heritage, language, and identity.’

Centrepiece of NS/WAS is a School for Peace which opened its doors to students in 1979 and has also functioned as training centre for teachers and group leaders. It is a bilingual, bicultural, binational elementary school co-ordinated jointly by a professional team of Jewish and Arab educators. Some are residents of the village, others come from the neighbourhood.

Decisions are take democratically. The School of Peace conducts bilingual workshops, in Hebrew and Arabic. Encounter groups are held, and consultation provided on the making of peace curricula. By 1985, the programmes of the School for Peace had reached 5,000 Jewish and Arab school children. Many teachers and student-teachers had been trained, and workshop weekends conducted to promote understanding and co-operation between Israeli Jews and Arabs.

Summer evening adult-education lecturers began in 1992. A year later, the School for Peace had managed, in the face of political resistance, to have nursery, kindergarten and primary school units established and recognised by the regional council of the Ministry of Education. Children from neighbouring Arab and Jewish communities began to come to these institutions. By 1995, the waiting list of applicants wanting to living at NS/WAS numbered 150 (both Jewish and Arab). Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam is thriving. A large olive orchard covers the hillside and its sheepfold is growing.

NS/WAS sets out to be nothing less than an ‘alternative model for life in Israel based on co-operation and equality’. The School for Peace adopts the same principles. A vast array of outreach programmes exposes members of the community -and the many Israelis and Palestinians beyond the region who have an interest- to the possibilities of coexistence in a country where the word has particular resonance.

The coexistence activities are directed as much at promoting more harmonious relations between Israelis and Palestinians within the State of Israel, as those wider afield, in ‘the territories’. Within the State of Israel itself, the need for coexistence is great.

With the Israeli government having endorsed education for coexistence as a priority, and established a special unit of the Ministry of Education specifically for this purpose, three different approaches have emerged for dealing with Arab-Jewish relations.

First, the encounter approach. Members of the two groups are brought together for short and intense encounters during which they are forced to confront prejudices and the issues at the root of conflict. The experiential approach has longer encounters which concentrate on joint activities of mutual interest. In teaching for democracy education is viewed as ‘recognition of the equal right of all people to freedom.’

All three approaches are linked by common elements, including the recognition that language is at the base of one’s national identity. Arabic is an official language in Israel; Hebrew is the dominant tongue. Palestinians are mostly bilingual, but Jews do not have a command of Arabic.

‘Language is almost the only resource at an encounter that carries a real potential for conflict between the participants,’ note Rabah Halabi, director of the School for Peace, and Michal Zak, the youth project co-ordinator.

‘Since each group finds it more convenient to use its own language, and since it is possible to speak only one language at any given moment, fertile ground is created for real conflict over the choice of language to be spoken in the room’, they write in the School for Peace Annual report for 1996-1997.

Theory and practice collide when the School for Peace has to deal with this issue. Although the policy is to allow both Hebrew and Arabic as legitimate languages for use at all times, Jews are ignorant of conversational Arabic, whereas Arabs have spent several years learning spoken Hebrew.

Thus, eventually, during encounters, language becomes a tool, used to ‘score points’.

Irish, Cypriot, Palestinian and Israeli delegations in an international facilitators course that took place in the School for Peace

One female Arab participant in an encounter said: ‘I won’t speak Arabic because the Jews think we’re primitive anyway, and I don’t want to strengthen their opinion.’ But another student said: ‘As Arabs in Israel, our language is all we have left to our identity - and you want to give that up, too?’

On the other hand, one Jewish participant in an encounter said: ‘I was annoyed when they spoke in Arabic because I suddenly felt that I had no control.’

At the NS/WAS primary school, a frontal approach has been made to deal with this problem by setting up a special trilingual language centre offering training in Hebrew, English and Arabic. A large room has been set aside in which pupils can independently choose language learning tasks well defined and explain so they can work with a minimum of guidance. The centre’s role is supportive of the regular language courses.

Grace Feuerverger, who spent several years studying NS/WAS up close, says it is the quest for understanding between the two cultural/national groups and for awareness of the complexity of the Jewish-/Arab issue, that is at the heart of the peaceful coexistence between villagers.

In her report, titled ‘Oasis of Peace: A Community of Moral Education in Israel’, she notes: ‘As a result of the constant social and political tensions that arise out of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, moral negotiation in the village continues at all levels of discourse. I was struck by how the villagers were constantly negotiating the space between the tensions of competing national aspirations and their personal attempts at coexistence and goodwill.’

In another study of coexistence initiatives between Jews and Palestinian citizens of Israel, Haviva Bar and Elias Eady say those who have participated in encounter activities have acquired a ‘more complex and realistic perception of the conflict’ between Israel and the Palestinians.

‘This is apparent in various areas: legitimisation of the other nation’s existence and recognition of its national affinity; awareness that both groups cause hurt and suffer hurt; recognition by Jews that they, too, have a concrete, active part in the conflict. Another significant accomplishment of encounters is that they reduce the feeling of personal and group hatred that is attributed to the other nation...’

An Intergroup discussion between Jewish and Palestinian Arab adults, will typically use a model developed by the School for Peace to faithfully enact the characteristic patterns of contact between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in Israeli society. It is played out in the following way.

The majority group (Jews) shows a lack of recognition for the realities of oppression and discrimination felt by the minority group (Arabs) and for the legitimacy of a Palestinian national identity. In turn, the minority group uses various means to control or quash the expressions of nationalism from the Arab side. Newly empowered, the minority group uses its assertiveness to bring about change in the balance of power in the room. Thus from a situation of majority holding sway over a minority, the situation is shifted towards a dialogue of equals.

Once each national group gives up its customary role, the dialogue can be advanced. The expression of power by the Palestinian group, and its acceptance by the Jewish group, changes the balance of power in the room. There is an equal dialogue. This opens the door to progress in negotiation.

Of course, the conflict that made the establishment of the village and its school so vital, is never far. In the middle of 1997, plans were made for a ground-breaking art encounter called ‘Art as a Language of Communication’. It was supposed to involve a group of Israelis and Palestinians engaging in artistic experience and creativity.

Just days before the workshop, two Palestinian suicide bombers blew themselves up in the Jerusalem market, killing many people, and leading to the Israeli government closing off its territory to non-resident Palestinians, depriving thousands of their livelihood. After much agonising, the workshop went ahead. Five Palestinians and eight Israelis participated.

‘I worked for many years in facilitating groups who live in conflict and in developing models for this work,’ said one of the organisers, Diana Shalufi-Rizek. ‘Still, I cannot remember such a touching event as I experienced in this workshop. Art is a magical, wonderful tool of communication, which facilitates cultural contract with a strong and positive human rough.’

And Palestinian participant Fadea said: ‘The beautiful thing that happened is our meeting, as Palestinians and Israelis, in a place that made it possible to know the language and the love that is in our hearts.’

At the March 1997 encounter between Palestinian and Israeli autonomy teachers that was almost stymied by a bombing, there were 20 teachers from each side. The participants were aware that they were breaking ground: most Israelis and Palestinians still have little contact. It was the first time many of these participants were meeting on an equal basis. The juxtaposition was evident to most: while this encounter was taking place, relations between Israel and the Palestinians were deteriorating.

One participant took note of the dilemma.

‘The talks outside had stopped. Should we conduct meetings in these conditions? As facilitators, we face many other dilemmas: How do we bridge between differences and motivation and in the expectations that each side brings to the meetings? The Palestinians want action; want to discuss future relations; want to change the situation. The Israelis want a process that will enable them to work on themselves.’

But in the end, despite all the difficulties, there was a willingness to continue dialogue and search for a note of optimism.

next  

Feedback please to j.verhoeven@euconflict.org