Lihish’tah’weel

The strategic basis for peace in Palestine

By Ricardo Levins Morales

March, 2007

http://ricardolevinsmorales.com/writings.shtml

“Lihish’ta’weel in essence represents a movement for two Rights of Return: for Palestinians to return to places that were stolen from them, for Jews to return to the

expansive roots of Jewishness that have been stolen as well, and with equally devastating results.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: compassion, conflict and clarity

Making choices 5

Crafting crisis

Self image

Core and periphery

Expansion and contraction

Colonialism and utopia 8

The battle over Zionism

Jewish Nationalism and the Dystopia Principle

Facts and shadows 12

Proximate and Ultimate Goals

In the crosshairs

Jewish self-image and Nationalism

On the menu: Zionism and Jihad

Hitler’s footprints

Israel’s empty mirror

Palestine’s clouded window

Democracy and despotism

Big picture little picture

Creating a change 24

Dividing Israel

Peace and Jewish ultimate goals

Peace and Palestinian ultimate goals

Making it real: turning strategy into tactics

States of confusion

Terms of conflict 32

Hate and connection

Guerrilla war and attrition

Asymmetrical conflict and solidarity

Cannibalism or transformation

Jewish oppression and the possibility of wolves

Jewish oppression and Palestinian struggle

Finding the road 43

Seats at the table

The shifting ground

Bitter harvests

The road to peace

Conclusion

Postscript

Introduction: conflict, compassion and clarity

The conflict over Palestine has settled into a kind of dynamic stalemate. The state of Israel pursues a strategy of escalating brutality against Palestinian civilian society. The dominant forces on the Palestinian side oscillate between attacks on civilians in Israel and concessions to Israeli demands. Each side chooses from a limited and predictable menu of responses which do not alter the underlying balance of forces. The dynamics of this brutal standoff are raising the temperature in each society and bringing internal divisions into play. Glimpses of more promising initiatives can be seen on the ground but they are eclipsed by the military/paramilitary players who set the rhythm and pace of the conflict. What follows is an analysis of the factors underlying the stalemate, and an attempt to highlight the possibilities for transforming the strategic landscape.

This requires identifying points of leverage in the conflict, identifying how they can be utilized and who is in a position to do so. To be meaningful, such an analysis must also address the perceptions held by people in the conflict that make the idea of a strategic shift appear hopeless. For it to be of use, a lever must be within reach.

The lever that is identified in this analysis I have called ‘Lihish’ta’weel,’ a composite of wordsmeaning ‘transformation’ in Arabic (tahweel) and Hebrew (lihishtaneh). The transformation in question is from a ‘Jewish/Palestinian’ conflict to a struggle for social justice. Neither Palestinian nor Jewish ultimate goals (as expressed in the lives and dreams of ‘ordinary’ people) are well served by the prevailing understandings of the conflict. These ultimate goals, as we shall see below, are not mutually exclusive but mutually dependent. For either people to achieve their goalswill require a change in the vision and dynamics of the conflict. This transformation will create the conditions to replace the military-political elite that controls the Israeli state with a leadership capable of ushering in a democratic order in partnership with a newly invigorated Palestinian civil society. This is what will be necessary to deliver the Palestinian and Jewish needs for land rights and safety respectively, This scenario will seem like wishful thinking only because the brutality of this conflict has given it the intractable rhythm of a blood feud, obscuring the cultural and political currents at work that provide the keys to its solution. This paper will introduce tools of

analysis to make these currents—and the possibilities they embody—visible.

For a strategic vision to hold water, it must deal—in a forthright manner—with the most contentious dimensions of the conflict: colonial oppression, ethnic displacement, theft of resources, violent targeting of non-combatants, terror tactics, denial of services, the role of international opinion and the legacy of current and past racial victimization of Arabs and Jews. Nothing must be left off the table.

Many of the elements of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are echoed in, and linked to, past andcurrent struggles around the world. The idea that this conflict is completely unique--existing in a world of its own--is a myth that deprives us of necessary perspective. There are, for sure, unique aspects to this conflict. This is true of every conflict. Understanding what is specific to this struggle and what can be learned from other instances of conflict is key to finding the points of pressure that can unlock the creative power of the “ordinary” people whose actions can end the logjam. The case will be made that it is among these people, not in the capitols of the United States

and Europe, that the leverage can be found to redefine and redirect this struggle. The interests of the officials in those capitols do not, in any case, correspond to those of the people in Haifa, Jerusalem, and Jenin. Any strategic initiatives with the potential to resolve the conflict must bewithin the reach of ‘ordinary’ people on the ground.

Every analysis begins with a goal. If I wish to travel to a neighboring city to purchase a pair of shoes and return in time for supper, my analysis must consider the conditions of the roads, the weather, the distance to be traveled, the means of transportation available to me and the amount of money in my wallet. If my goal is to be standing on the moon within twenty years then an entirely different set of variables will come to mind.

The goal of this analysis is to offer a new perspective on some of the puzzling dynamics of the conflict. It is offered with the intention of identifying sources of “traction” that can move conflict toward a just outcome. A “just” solution does not refer to a compromise between the stated positions of leaders and governments but to an outcome that embraces the ultimate needs of the families, communities and individuals who make up the mass of the population. My commitment to this goal is uncompromising. I have brought up two children. The challenges I have experienced along the way have raised questions about how to fulfill my task of bringing them safely to adulthood. They have never called into question the goal itself. Similarly, injustice, oppression, racism and arbitrary brutality are realities we must come to terms with in order to find the necessary steps toward a peace that leaves no one behind. The question is “how” to accomplish that, not “if.” A solution that does not address everyone’s needs is not a viable option.

What if it were suggested that such a solution is possible; that the current dynamic of conflict can be interrupted by realistic strategies that are within reach of activists; that these can result in a realignment of forces that will produce a strategic alliance between the people of Palestine and a significant sector of Israeli Jews--the very people, we have been led to believe, whose needs are irreconcilable and whose hostility is incurable? In what follows I will seek to demonstrate the practicality of this optimistic assessment. I will address the underlying dynamics that, by being misunderstood, have confounded the elaboration of viable strategies. If good ideas alone would solve the conflict it would by now be a distant memory. Any credible effort to bring fresh air into the strategic discussion must counter and address the weight of discouragement borne by those who have wrestled with the issues for many years only to see the brutality grind on. Discouragement reflects the ineffectiveness of the predominant strategies that in turn reflect misunderstandings of the political and cultural geography. Discouragement also leads us to fight hard for half-measures and partial solutions because bolder goals seem out of reach. This report recommends a different approach.

Any discussion of this conflict is as explosive as the conflict itself. There is a natural interest in, and suspicion about, the agenda of any commentator. It is fair, then, that I lay my cards on the table at the outset so that you will understand the intentions and assumptions of this project. I come to this table not as a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs but rather as an participant/observer of social movements and student of social movement strategy. I am a Jewish child of the Puerto Rican anti-colonial movement. As a colonial subject I can readily identify with the victims of colonial occupation and am intimate with its mythologies and justifications. As a Jew and the son of two homelands (one of which is the United States) I do not believe in the inherent evil of any people. Therefore I seek explanations for how we behave, in the histories--real and imagined—that we carry with us and in the conditions of the real world.

This paper will touch upon these histories. They will not prove anything. They are not meant to. They are brought in to illustrate the undercurrents beneath the landscape that can help to explain its seemingly conflicting laws of motion. They represent a skeletal description of the forces that have brought us here. The implications of this rough sketch will be fleshed out in a strategic overview and translated into proposals for actions that could turn the new understandings into power on the street. These proposals will sound like crazy-talk without the third element of this paper: a theoretical framework for understanding the choices that people make under the stress of conflict. It is this framework that allows a fresh look at strategy to move beyond the level of fantasy.

One element of this framework--which runs counter to common assumptions--is that “intractable” hatreds, racist ideologies, rigid positions and seemingly contradictory demands are, in fact, quite fluid. They respond to changing conditions and these conditions are subject to human action. In the Palestine/Israel nexus people--like people everywhere--make the best choices they can see under the circumstances they face. When new options emerge, alignments can change rapidly. If we were to take as given the postures and rhetoric of the moment and attempt to fashion it into a peace program, we would be doomed to failure. The negotiating table only reflects the conditions, balance of forces and perceptions current in the world outside. There is greater potential for flexibility in that outside world than in that negotiating room. Even the best seeds cannot take root in barren soil. It is the soil that requires our attention and that is the focus of this project.

There are three lenses through which this analysis is attempted. The first is compassion. It is commonly feared that recognizing the full humanity of all of the players will deprive us of the ability to confront people’s complicity with structural violence and oppression; that we cannot simultaneously understand people and hold them accountable. If this paper contributes anything, I hope it will be to demonstrate that strategic compassion is indispensable for a clear analysis and that without it we are susceptible to strategic mysticism, racism, “clashes of civilizations,” and

other absurdities.

The second lens is unsentimentality. This means that we look at history to find out what happened, not to find comfort in stories that will make us--or those we sympathize with—look good. It requires facing ugly truths. The purpose of acknowledging crimes that have been committed is not to build a case for the prosecution but to prescribe with maximum precision the steps we must take to interrupt crimes still in progress. The truth can be a cruel and unsympathetic

friend--but it is never an enemy. This goes to the heart of the project. I will seek to demonstrate that no matter how harsh the facts of the case, it is possible to approach it in a way that honors the ultimate interests of all of the peoples involved. This is an unwavering commitment. This attitude, which will seem unduly optimistic to some, allows us to set aside the temptation to shape the facts for our convenience. It proposes that the only hope lies in clarity of vision. It is a process

that has generated its share of surprises for this writer.

The third lens is that of political ecology. This is the idea that society resembles an ecosystem more than a chessboard. Any actions taken cause reactions in many directions, some large, some invisible. A gardener can create the conditions for the desired plants to flourish and can continue to monitor and react to the results--but cannot truly control the process. The gardener must above all understand the life cycle of plants, the patterns of rain and sun, and the interlocking fortunes of vegetables, weeds, birds and insects. Even so there will be uninvited guests and unforeseen conditions. Farming is an improvisational process, not the fulfillment of a blueprint. If peace has not come, it is not for lack of blueprints and peace plans. Peace proposals are the seeds that need hospitable soil and sufficient water to grow. This paper suggests an approach--a “diplomacy of action”-- intended to prepare the conditions, the soil if you will, that will permit a genuine peace process to take root. This process is what we will call Lihish’ta’weel. It is not a blueprint to stop the conflict but a strategy for transforming it into one that can give birth to a just resolution.

Finally, I must clarify that this paper is about the possibility of achieving peace and justice. It is not about fairness. The struggle for justice is not fair. People die who should not die. Lives are spent striving for things that should be everyone’s birthright. In the end, people who should face criminal charges for unspeakable crimes walk free. The burden of making necessary changes, of forcing history onto new paths, does not fall upon those who should bear it, it falls on those who must. The heaviest price is often paid by the wise, the generous or the innocent.

The most unforgivable sin of strategic thinking is self-deception. Whatever short term advantages can be gained by convincing ourselves of falsehoods, it will exact a heavy toll over time. If one side in a conflict has sufficient power to impose its will unilaterally, the consequences of these illusions may be postponed, but the bill eventually comes due. If the balance of forces is not so imbalanced, then the price will be immediate and continual since our choices will be based on unreliable assumptions. What will follow contains some harsh assessments. Unsentimental vision is the most important tool we can apply to secure ultimate safety, peace and healing for the Arab, Jewish and other peoples of the region.

To read the complete text, download below in Adobe Acrobat Reader (as a pdf file) or visit Ricardo Levins-Morales' website.