Without variation and with omnipresent intensity, the single
cure to every natural, economic and political calamity is said to
be civil dialogue.
What is the solution to heated debates between campus groups?
Discourse, proudly proclaim student leaders. How about the solution
to labor strikes? Round table discussions, opine the analysts. And
what can we use to resolve this Middle East conflict once and for
all? The media, body politic and government all agree: mutually
beneficial conflict-resolution dialogue.
In minor disputes and legal arbitrations, dialogue sure works.
Cases that would take years to be resolved are quickly and
effectively settled outside the courtroom. And often a petty
quarrel between friends can be overcome through discussion and
understanding.
But in the matter of court cases, the opposing sides are
citizens bound by the same set of laws. And in the matter of the
petty quarrels, the problem is a misunderstanding, not a clash of
worldviews.
In the present conflict, Israel and Palestine are not governed
by the same laws (or, from a different perspective, are governed by
no laws at all), and their conflict is not rooted in
misunderstanding.
The origin of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is clear
““ it is their diametrically opposite historical, political
and cultural beliefs about the world around them.
The conflagration here extends even beyond a strong ideological
matchup. The problem is not in the debate itself but rather in the
rules of the debate. The different historical legacies of Israel
and Palestine have rendered them incompatible entities. The recent
history of the Middle East peace process seems to prove this.
The most promising outcome of the Middle East peace process,
which was initiated in October 1991 at the Madrid Conference, came
in August 2000.
President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and
the head of the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat got together in
Camp David for some good, hearty discussion. At first everything
seemed to be going well.
But just one month later, when Israel’s opposition leader
Ariel Sharon visited the Islamic sites on the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem, suicide bombing began again, and the Middle East was
thrust once again into chaos.
But if Sharon had not visited the Temple Mount, the voice of
dialogue still asserts, then perhaps the peace could have been
maintained.
Until when? Until one rebel suicide bomber blew up a mall in
Israel or until an impassioned Israeli soldier killed an innocent
civilian? When two sides fight on the same level as Israel and
Palestine now fight, there will always be occasion for
violence.
The peace process by its very nature requires that both parties
at least agree on the terms of debate. But due to disparate
cultural, historical and political circumstances, Israel and
Palestine can never do this.
The total inefficacy of billions of dollars, thousands of Web
sites, tens of thousands of articles ““ decades of energy
expended by dozens of governments on the Middle East peace process
““ prove that peace through debate is not possible.
So we have arrived at that dreadful conclusion ““ in this
instance, peace will never be achieved. It will not be achieved
because two sides are fighting tirelessly for what they believe is
the truth ““ their destiny. The two sides have their eyes on
the same prize.
How will this whole thing end? If history has anything to do
with it, it will end when one side scores a convincing victory and
the other side bears a substantial defeat. Every major conflict in
world history, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Civil
War, has ended with the victory of one side and the defeat of the
other side.
The battle in the Middle East is only part of this grand
historical pattern.
Of course, college students from both sides should cooperate and
lead discussions. Civil discourse is the best way to tell our side
of the story and hear the other side. Group discussions, though
they abound in clichés that are pregnant with nuances but
devoid of meaning, can help us in our eternal pursuit of human
understanding.
But not for a moment should we believe that this dialogue can
““ or will ““ change the turbulent future of the Middle
East.
Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.