Where two are fighting, two are to blame 

12 January 2009

The past few weeks have seen yet another uprising of violence in the Israel/Palestine area. As usual, comments form the world, ranging from formal government statements to individuals adding their two cents, are generally polarised between fully pro-Israel or fully pro-Palestine. A middle ground is hard to find in these discussions, where mainly questions such as "who is wrong?", "who started this?" or "who has the rightful historical claims?" are discussed. A solution to a problem that has been going on for decades now seems harder to find than before.

It is not my intention to present an easy solution to the issues surrounding the situation in this text, as the situation is infinitely more complex than just two kids fighting for a toy and I am not an expert in the politics of the region. What I do want to do, though, is suggest a framework to get out of the situation so that both parties can find a solution together. Nobody else is in a better position than the parties themselves to find a solution once there is the willingness to do so, after all.

The framework is based on a few simple elements of communication and humanity that need to get adopted by all people involved before a solution can be determined.
A. First of all: perspectives. There are four perspectives that we can take to view a situation and frequently, people can only see one, the first. This first perspective is your own perspective. Equally important, if not more important, is to be able to see the second perspective: that of the other. Only by being able to really see the other's perspective can we get a feeling for what moves and inspires the other to do what he does. Note that seeing the other's perspective is not based on mind-reads, i.e. "He must be thinking this and be motivated by such", no, it is based on real interest in what moves the other, what the full perspective of the other is in terms of context, activities, capabilities, values, beliefs and identity. Once we take time to get a feeling for all that, we are one step further towards understanding them. The third perspective is the one of the neutral observer, who just neutrally looks at what happens between ourselves and the others. Take that perspective for a change and look at what is going on from an impartial point of view. How are my actions justified and what is wrong with them? How are the other's actions justified and what is wrong with them? What is going on in the interaction between ourselves and the others? Finally, the fourth perspective looks back at ourselves from a position next to ourselves and looks at our own perspective from a critical point of view. Is it justified what we do, what we belief, what we think we are? Or is there room for improvement? Once these four perspectives have been investigated, all of us are a big step further towards understanding each other and being critical about ourselves and hence towards a solution.
B. Development. Human beings and groups of human beings develop themselves over time. We do so in various aspects of who we are, based on the circumstances that we live in. We develop in terms of cognition, morality, communication, spirituality, culture, etc. People living in basic circumstances where th need for survival is dominant can function with a more basic level of development in many aspects than people who live in highly complex and demanding societies. The question is, if the level of development is appropriate for the circumstances that we live in. Solutions for more and more complex situations can only be found by those who have developed to a level that can cope with those complex situations. The "solutions" implemented by those that cannot understand the complexity of a situation are often needlessly destructive at various levels and do not help to solve the issues.
IN my opinion, the complexity of the situation requires that the solution is to be found by people with a level of development in various aspects that can subscribe to the following:
1. Morality: activities such as suicide bombing, boundless violence, unequal retaliation, suppression, withholding of basic rights, etc. are morally unjustifiable. Morality at the right level demands that every human being has the right to lead a life in peace, safety, with access to food, work and shelter and with the possibilities to develop themselves. Any activity jeopardising those basic human rights is to be banned.
2. Communication. Communication skills should be such that the basics of perspectives under A. can be adopted and real interest in the other's perspective, values and needs can be brought up. Although basic values may be conflicting initially, there can always be found higher values that are shared and worth pursuing together. Communication starts with listening to the other rather than trying to push the own opinion through.
3. Culture. Sensitivity to the culture of the other is needed to understand the other's perspective. Especially in this situation, though, it can be pretty easily seen that the cultures of Israel and the culture of Palestine are closer together than some make us belief. Common religious roots, common linguistic roots, common habits are easy to be found if you are willing to see them. If those similarities are seen, it becomes much easier to get closer to an understanding of each other.
4. Growing over it. Granted, there are decades of history that are standing in the way here. Decades of monstrosities committed by both sides, decades of not-so-voluntary agreements made under pressure. Decades of regrets, pain and anger. But if you want to find a solution, the past must be left behind at some point. The past is not something to keep clinging to, so that it blocks a solution. The past is there to learn from, in order to not make the same mistakes again and build a better future. A better future that both peoples deserve more than anyone else.