After advocating a bottom-up approach to inducing change within the Israel-Palestine conflict in last week’s blog, I did a bit more research on the subject. Perhaps the top-down approach be effective and could be used to create a positive peace in the region. Progressive leadership could eradicate structural and direct violence that is prevalent in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of two separate states.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict many Palestinians have been forced to leave their homes and live in refugee camps. These camps now house generations of refugees. This causes resentment among Palestinians as the Israelis occupy land they view as rightly theirs (Promises). Tight security along the borders of Israel, and whereas Israelis can pass through boarder check-points easily, Palestinians must have passes that are not easy to come by (Promises). Also structural violence permeates the economic sphere as well. Israeli and Palestine economies depend upon each other. Palestinians depend on Israelis for jobs; Israelis depend on low-wage Palestinian labor (Wassertein 62). Many Palestinians are unemployed and barely surviving (Wassertein 65), which shows how disadvantaged Palestinians are, as compared with Israelis.
The inequality has spurred violence against the Israelis. The First and Second Intifada were popular uprisings of Palestinians against the Israeli authorities. Hamas use of suicide bombers is an attempt to make the Israeli population feel as the Palestinians do. According to Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantsi, one of the founders of the Hamas movement,
"The bombings were a moral lesson. They were a way of making innocent Israelis feel the pain that innocent Palestinians had felt. “We want to do the same to Israel as they have done to us,” he explained, indicating that just as innocent Muslims had been killed in the Hebron incident and in many other skirmishes during the Israeli-Palestinian tensions, it was necessary for the Israeli people to actually experience the violence before they could understand what the Palestinians had gone through" (Juergensmeyer 75).
The leadership on both the Israeli and the Palestine sides perpetuates the structural violence. Experiments done by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram illustrated the level of obedience that authority commanded. There are three roles that are filled in the experiment: an authority figure, the learner, and the teacher. The teacher is the only true participant as the authority figure and the learner are in on the experiment. The authority figure tells the teacher to ask the learner questions. Whenever the learner fails to offer a correct answer, the teacher must administer a shock to the learner. The voltage of the shock increases with each incorrect answer. The experiment showed that people would cause what they believed was great physical pain to another if acting under orders.
As shown through Milgram’s experiments, people obey authority. This gives authority legitimacy (Gellner 3). As Milgram states,
"Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many people obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct" (1).
Thus people pin the responsibility of their actions on those that give the orders rather than take responsibility upon themselves (Milgram 8). People give power to those in authority, power to make the decisions and give the orders. A leader’s power is at the consent of the people. If the leader does something that is extremely unpopular, he or she can lose his or her power, position, and legitimacy. However, it is much more likely that no matter how unwilling, people will follow their chosen leaders. A top-down approach should be used to induce change and bring about negative peace within the region through the creation of two separate states. A negative peace is where there is not any direct violence, but there is still structural violence and inequality. According to Khalil Shikaki, Director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research,
"To the question of 'If there is a peace agreement and the issues of the conflict are resolved and a two-state solution is adopted and a Palestinian state is created,' a full three-fourths say they would not only support recognition of Israel but also support reconciliation between the two peoples. In fact two-thirds of the public are willing to go further and agree to a formula whereby the Palestinians would not only recognize Israel but would recognize the Jewish nature of the state of Israel as part of a peace agreement.
The public is a lot more moderate than Fatah and Hamas put together when it comes to a two-state solution" (Is a two-state solution acceptable? Bush et. al.).
This demonstrates that if the leaders are willing to engage in the diplomacy to create two states, the public would follow.
Whereas the populations may not be happy with the concessions and agreements that their leaders make, they are likely to abide by these agreements if the authority enforces them, as Milgram’s experiment indicates. Leaders on both sides should engage in diplomacy and create two distinct states. Separate states can end direct violence because there will be clear geographical boundaries and the groups will no longer be contesting which land belongs to whom. The Palestinians will be united under one government, giving that government the authority and sole right to legitimate violence (Gellner 3) which should put an end to the suicide bombers. Following the end to direct violence, the structural violence can also be eliminated. The economies of Palestinians and Israelis can become more separate which can decrease the amount of structural violence that occurs economically. Palestinians can work for other Palestinians and can cease to feel exploited by Israelis. This positive peace can be accomplished through firm leadership as the top-down approach advocates.
Bush, George W., Khalil Shikaki, Naomi Chazan, Condoleezza Rice, Ziad J. Asali, Shimon Peres, Moshe Yaalon, John Spritzler, Marian Kromkowski, Ali Abunimah, and Khalaf Al Habtoor. "Is a two-state solution acceptable?" Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. 15 May 2008. ProCon.org. 9 Oct. 2008 .
Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God : The Global Rise of Religious Violence. New York: University of California P, 2003.
Promises. Dir. Justine Shapiro, B.Z. Goldberg and Carlos Bolado. DVD. 2004.
Wasserstein, Bernard. Israelis and Palestinians : Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop? New York: Yale UP, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment