In the last edition of the Common Ground News Service newsletter, Marzuq Halabi proposes a language of “reconciliation” as opposed to a language of “solutions” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Halabi describes how the language of “solutions” in past attempts to resolve the conflict failed to recognize the “history, ideology, morality and self-preservation” of both Jews and Palestinians and therefore could not speak to the heart of the conflict.
Halabi cites the Oslo Accords as a failure because the agreements did nothing to articulate the real and implicit values of the conflict. By favoring considerations for Israeli security, the Accords continued to uphold the structures of oppression.
I agree with Halabi that the Oslo Accords and the current language of a “two-state solution” fails miserably on the ground when it comes up against such intractable realities as the Second Intifada and the latest war in Gaza. Both sides of the conflict scream for recognition of their legitimate concerns, but how can they hear one another when the language of dialogue fails to speak a language both can understand and agree upon? Halabi states that the only language that can be recognized across the borders is one that addresses both Palestinian and Jewish values, beginning with writing the history of the land “from a common script.”
My question concerns how this kind of dialogue can tangibly begin and work its way up to the state level?
You can read Marzuq Halabi’s full article here.
The picture below was taken in the Old City, Jerusalem, with the Dome of the Rock in the background.
Rebecca, this is a great question. I just finished writing a paper about “a common script” in Iranian foreign policy. The thing is, that common script emerged (i.e., was not deliberately constructed) in the dramatic (and too often tragic) course of Iranian history. That means in the course of a the country of a single country… rather than several nations as would be the case in the Palestinian situation.
Even so, that common script of Iranian foreign policy is experienced, interpreted and acted on in diverse ways. There is room within a common script for diverging perspectives. I wonder if part of the problem in Palestine is that there is to some degree a “common script?” Perhaps one that is performed with starkly different theatrical style and interpretation? I wonder if there are sacred concepts that multiple parties share… but interpret in very different ways… and therefore perform distinctly? If so, what might some of those concepts be?