Greetings, Jonathon,
You suggest that 'starting with the first brick' must be the way to go --
that thinking in terms of final settlement will have the sides immediately
at odds with each other.
But the first brick approach is what the peace process that has been
employed for the last two decades has tried, precisely, as you suggest, in
order to build trust. The brick usually chosen was that of 'security'. Why
would this same approach work now?
Both the Israelis and Palestinians are fully aware of what the 'big
questions' are: territory, sovereignty, viability. They have not been able
to embrace even the first brick wholeheartedly, not knowing how the big
questions would in the end be resolved. So...what might be done differently
now?
Re: Palestinian independence: the demand for independence by the
Palestinians goes much further back than 40 years. At least as far back as
March 1920, the General Syrian Congress proclaimed the independence Syria,
including Palestine and with full Palestinian participation. The European
nations did not recognize the new country, President Wilson's 14-points not
withstanding. (Palestinian enthusiastic support for independence was
confirmed, if there any doubters, by the United-States' King-Crane
Commission. (The Damascus Protocol, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence
(which specified the UK's acceptance of Arab independence for, among other
areas, Palestine), and the King-Crane Commission itself all contained
explicit reference to the national independence of Palestine, whether within
the larger Syrian nation or separately.
British military occupation of Palestine prevented the effective
implementation of this national independence in Palestine, and instead with
Zionist urging, the Treaty of Sevres embodied the terms of the Balfour
Declaration within a "Mandate" to be imposed on Palestine. Even the League
of Nations, under whose auspices the Mandate over Palestine was established,
recognized that the independence of former parts of the Ottoman Empire,
including Palestine, could be provisionally recognized, and that the role of
the Mandatory power (UK) would be to provide "administrative advice and
assistance". The Mandate also endorsed the implementation of the Balfour
Declaration, and opened Palestine to Jewish immigration.
All this was to defeat Palestinian hopes for independence. But it is wrong
to say that the idea of Palestinian independence only emerged 40 years ago
(1950 or 60s). That the demand was thwarted does not mean that it wasn't
made, repeatedly, explicitly, and in all settings that the Palestinians were
allowed to participate in. The demand, as I have explained in past emails,
was then repeated continuously until the present day.
It should be noted, for those more familiar with European concepts of
nationhood, that the Arabs and Muslim areas of the world only really began
to pay attention to nation-state structures around WWI and Wilson's
14-points, and then, primarily within the framework of shaking off European
colonialism. "Independence" and "self-determination" were closely allied
ideas. But before that, Arabs had a tribal or caliphal political structure.
It is a tenet of traditional Arab and Muslim political philosophy that all
should be united, in the best of times, into a pan-Arab or all-Muslim world,
that they all are brothers and sisters. Of course, this philosophy was
manifested in several different ways, and often broke down over their long
history. The notion of national statehood, especially the secular version of
it, was quite new, coming as it did some 150 years after its elevation by
the political thinkers of Europe.
Well, here we are back in history, but I hope this helps. despite what you
may all be convinced of by now, I am actually not that interested in
history -- except when it has a direct bearing on what can or cannot happen
in the future. Essentially, I am a futurist, far more oriented toward
creating new realities from scratch (which is what I do for a living) -- but
we have in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one that is heavily tied to the
recent past. The Israelis and Palestinians are still very much fighting over
what happened in 1915 and 1916, 1920 and 1947.
Best regards,
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Jonathan B. Marder
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:04 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Middle East -- What is an MOQ Solution?
>
>
> Hi Roger and Lawrence
>
> LAWRENCE [to ROGER]
> > The idea then, is to see whether the MOQ can impart any special
> wisdom to
> > thinking about a solution. I cannot fault your ideas on the
> elements of a
> > solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but have to point out that
> > does not advance our thinking on such a solution. An independent
> Palestinian
> > State is precisely what people have been demanding for several decades.
> The
> > pre-WWI diplomatic commitments between the UK and the Arabs, Wilson's
> > 14-Points, the Mandate, the Peel Commission, the 1939 UK White
> Paper, the
> UN
> > Partition resolution -- all these have called for an independent
> Palestinian
> > State. What we call "no-fault" analysis of the conflict and design of a
> > solution is part of any conflict-resolution team's way of thinking.
> >
>
> Lawrence and Roger,
> while I agree that an independent Palestinian Arab state *is* a worthy
> goal, I should point out that it is only in the last 40 years or so that a
> Palestinian Arab nation entity has evolved with a state as its aspiration.
> Recognition and support for this in the rest of the Arab world is
> even more
> recent. Thus, it is hardly surprising that no Palestinian Arab
> State was set
> up until now. As for Roger's proposals, I agree with Lawrence that the
> elements are fine, but the problem is in creating a process that can bring
> them to realisation.
>
> The main reason that I am writing this now is not to argue about the
> history, but to respond to Lawrence's challenge:
>
> LAWRENCE
> > So, I would like to pose a challenge to all MOQers -- does the
> MOQ really
> > help create a new or better concept of a solution to the conflict? New
> > ideas are _desperately_ needed. The Palestinians and Israelis have boxed
> > themselves into go-nowhere conceptions of a peace. What does the MOQ
> > suggest in the way of a better solution?
>
> I think that the main cause of stuckness is the goal-oriented pursuit of
> grandiose "final status" solutions.
> I think that politicians who pursue the grand solutions are what Pirsig
> would call "ego-climbers".
> "He goes too fast or too slow for the conditions and when he talks his
> talk is always about somewhere else, something else. He's here
> but he's not
> here. He rejects the here, is unhappy with it, wants to farther
> up the trail
> but when he gets there will be just as unhappy . . ." [from ZAMM, Ch. 17].
> Speaking from the Israeli side, I think that this is a good description of
> former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
>
> In order to avoid being trapped by the "goal-oriented" approach, we should
> stop defining the goal in terms of sovereignty and borders, because these
> are not good subjects for negotiations. If Israelis and Palestinians
> negotiate over the colour of the flag that will fly over Temple Mount, I
> think it is a sure recipe for deadlock. The same goes for discussions of
> "final borders". In fact, I think that the word "final" is something that
> has to be avoided altogether. "Final Status" is too grandiose, and too
> difficult, and both sides start off on the defensive to make sure
> they don't
> get screwed. It is a huge gumption trap.
>
> I've just been looking at ZAMM Chapter 16, where a girl student
> is "blocked"
> when she tries to write a 500 word essay about the USA.. Phaedrus
> persuades
> her to narrow it down to the main street of Bozeman, and then to just the
> Opera House ("start with the first brick"). . . .
>
> THAT'S where we have to start building peace, WITH THE FIRST BRICK. There
> are a myriad of mundane, simple, non-contentious issues that can be dealt
> with easily and to mutual benefit. These are GOOD steps, that build mutual
> respect and trust - something greatly lacking right now. IMHO,
> once Israelis
> and Palestinians have walked enough small steps together, maybe
> issues like
> borders and sovereignty won't seem so ominous.
>
> Shalom,
>
> Jonathan
>
> PS. As an optimist, I still think that the prospects for peace between
> Israel and Palestine are a lot better than the prospects for peace between
> Germany and France 60 years ago!!!!!
>
> PPS When I suggested putting negotiators together on a desert island, I
> wasn't joking. When they find themselves having to sh*t behind the same
> trees, maybe their dented egos will be more amenable to real selfless
> mountain climbing.
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:12 BST