OFRA: Many people claim that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a unilateral attempt to promote peace. In my opinion, it constituted a bilateral act of war. After many years of fighting and bloodshed, the Palestinians succeeded in getting Israel to withdraw from Gaza and thus uproot about 10,000 residents from Gush Katif, Netzarim and the north of the Strip.
Did Israel’s withdrawal contribute to ending the conflict? Are the residents of Gaza happier today? Are the settlers who were uprooted from their homes happier now that they are far from the battleground? Do the citizens of Israel’s south sleep better at night?
It is not clear who has benefited from the Palestinian success in evicting Israel from Gaza, but it is clear that the withdrawal did not help bring peace any closer. One can liken this to a warring couple who move into separate rooms but continue to share the same house. Not the picture of marital harmony.
The route to peace, even if it is a long and winding road, means developing mechanisms for forging a shared life together – one which offers respect to people of different identities, not one that encourages the construction of barriers or the uprooting of communities.
Indeed, sooner or later political arrangements will be undertaken by governments, but in the meantime we cannot sit around waiting for our dreams (or nightmares) to come true. We must try to advance respect and partnership in the here and now.
I call upon non-governmental organizations, local and international, to develop mechanisms to support a life together. This is an appeal to courageous Israelis and Palestinians to give up the barriers of fear, find topics that cross national boundaries and develop these areas together in a way which makes it possible for us to practice trust, mutual respect and the promotion of healthy relations. I appeal to people to see Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria as places where it is possible to demonstrate good neighborliness and mutual consideration.
It is true that we cannot ignore the deep roots of the conflict. Jews believe that the essence of Zionism is the building of a Jewish national home in their land, the land of Israel. The Palestinians believe the Jews have robbed them of their land. They demand a solution for the refugees amongst them. The Israelis claim that they have already done their bit by absorbing a million Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
Meanwhile, we have erected walls of suspicion, injury and hatred. Are we destined to live lives of fear and hatred until the long awaited day comes when we will live with respect as neighbors?
But in the heart of the disputed areas even while we wait for an agreement, we can still discover areas of collaboration. As a resident of the settlement of Ofra, I can say that on the local level we are working collaboratively with our Palestinian neighbors on environmental matters such as waste, sewage purification and even a joint struggle to counter government decisions that harm the environment.
Here are examples for joint initiatives:
On environmental issues: The environment is shared by us all. It is possible to form a coalition of green organizations that would advocate separating the environment from the conflict; to set up joint initiatives for preventing water and air pollution; to deal with waste disposal and sewage; to work on sustainable regional planning, etc.
Tourism: The area of Judea and Samaria is an untapped treasure. It has spectacular views, a rich history, vineyards, olive groves and wheat fields. Developing tourism would give rise to a dialog of narratives, invite people from different backgrounds to discover the richness of the other’s identity and offer the potential to share economic prosperity.
Infrastructure: Israelis and Palestinians share the same infrastructure. Expanding and deepening collaboration on water issues, energy, communications and transport could benefit everyone and even create a basis for rapid economic development.
Small businesses: Small businesses have proven to be effective in improving the lives of weak segments of society. Anyone who remembers the economic prosperity in the area Bidia-Mas’ha before September 2000 will remember that even in our parts, small businesses are not only an impetus for economic prosperity but also enablers of positive relations between peoples.
The skeptics will say that so long as there is no end in sight to the conflict there is no chance for collaboration. This is the question of the chicken and the egg that accompanies the Israeli-Arab relationship: so long as the walls of hatred exist along with the assumption that it is possible to resolve the conflict through the use of force, there will be no chance of a resolution. So long as there is no resolution there is no chance of breaking through the barriers of hate.
What mechanism can help us break out of this vicious cycle?
The collaboration between international and local NGOs on both sides with a common agenda can kick start local action. This could be accompanied by a parallel attempt to discover a courageous leadership that will promote trust building between citizens on the one hand, and courageous citizens who will call on their leaders to make peace possible, on the other. Together, leaders and citizens will find that the more they succeed in translating their declarations into small, effective acts on the ground, the more they will progress toward peace.
In conclusion, Israeli withdrawal and the uprooting of settlements in response to violent pressure have not and will not lead to peace. When we succeed in lowering the walls of fear and hatred and discovering opportunities for collaboration, we will succeed in finding the political arrangements which will benefit us all.
Shay Ben Yosefis a group facilitator and consultant on how to navigate complexity. He is currently writing a PhD about the rehabilitation of the former residents of Gush Katif at the Department of Sociology at Bar Ilan University. He lives in the settlement of Ofra. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
