Home

Subscribe

About The Journal

Current Issue
  Editor's Comments
  Upcoming Events
  Ongoing Activities
  World Developments
  Dialoguing
  What We Are About
  Articles
  Media Notes
  Reports/Announcements
  Funding

Past Issues

Editorial Team

Questions / Feedback

Selected Links

Articles

     Whether one judges events according to the dictates of law, the reality of politics or the anxieties of human beings in distress, it should be clear to all concerned that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical and historic junction. Either the conflict is resolved fairly and peacefully or it ignites a wider conflict that draws in many other actors. In some respects, tensions and resentments over the Israeli-Palestinian situation have already contributed to the ongoing global political stresses that have resulted, in part, in terror and the "war against terror." It was very clear during the past two wars in Iraq that widespread Arab, Islamic and global criticism of the American-Israeli position on the Palestine issue was one reason why so many people around the world either did not see the United States as a credible political actor or actively opposed its positions. Palestine is not the only reason for this, but it remains an important reason, and probably a growing one at that. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be an active and significant threat to global peace and security like no other regional conflict in the world. Left to fester, it only raises the level of suffering in the immediate region, and expands its destructive impact on wider circles around the world.

     The policies that Israelis and Palestinians in power have adopted in recent years have failed miserably. Therefore it is no surprise that we now witness several fascinating attempts by Palestinians, Israelis and interested others to forge a peace process where none has credibly existed in recent years. The most important one is the "Geneva Agreement" that was signed in the Swiss city on December 1st. The specific peace-making proposals and their underlying principles are always fascinating, often intriguing, sometimes compelling but invariably worth examining more closely. Many people and groups have enthusiastically supported the proposed peace-making principles, others have given them tepid endorsement, and others yet have roundly criticized them as unfair and imbalanced hoaxes.

    History will determine the fate of such initiatives. Our obligation today is to ensure that every reasonable and honest attempt is made by all concerned parties to assess these initiatives in a spirit defined at once by fairness, clarity and honesty. The pressures of public opinion and the quality of political leadership will ultimately determine if such initiatives succeed or fail. That verdict should only assert itself after every reasonable human effort has been made to examine these ideas dispassionately, acknowledge their strengths, redress their weaknesses and find that middle ground that balances the formal dictates of law with the logical demands of thoughtful human beings. We must leave this juncture heading toward realistic and just peace-making, because the alternative is too frightening.


Top of Page
    

©2002, 2003, 2004. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute.  Opinions expressed are solely that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editing staff, Nonviolent Change Journal, Organization Development Institute, nor of the host and website owner of CirclePoint

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.