Building Coalitions for Peace

Engaged citizens are conditioned to discern between politicians and policies on the basis of the solutions the present. For example, in the debate around health care in the U.S., various parties compete on the basis of the plan they think will be able to best address the problem.

It sounds obvious that this would be the best way to advance a public goal, but it isn't the only way, and in some cases there are alternatives worth trying out. Here are some of those alternatives:

Who is at the table. An example would be an organization that demands representation for a particular group in the process, without making a comment on the final outcome. An example is the demand of some Mizrachi Jews who were forced to abandon property in Arab countries after 1948. They might not know the shape of a final peace agreement, but they want their own representatives to have a voice.

Values and principles. An example would be groups like the US Campaign Against the Occupation. They do not state upfront what a just solution would look like, but they point towards international law as yardstick for achieving justice.

Process. There are many groups focused on dialogue, such as Abraham's Vision. They don't claim to have a solution for ‘the conflict' but bringing Jews and Arabs together for conversation might change enough individuals that the dynamic itself is affected, leading to unforeseen but positive final outcomes.

Research. The Foundation for Middle East Peace publishes the Settlement Report. Their theory of change is that accurate information about the specifics of Israel's settlement project can help decision makers achieve a just solution.

Tactics. The Interfaith Peace Builders Institute support peace and their method is to bring interfaith delegations to Israel and Palestine to learn and express solidarity. They believe that this activity is helpful in bringing about a better climate for other initiatives which they do not need to agree upon in advance.

So much of the discussion in the comments section of this blog look like a clash of intentions. It has been my intention to discuss all of these different ways of looking at and for solutions; most of the comments have focused on what "the solution" should be and who is to blame for the current state of affairs.

For the record, I don't think that efforts to push for a specific solution are likely to be successful in the short term. Most of those efforts represent specific splinters of public opinion jockeying to prioritize their version of reality. We see that on all sides, public opinion is extremely fragmented. This isn't a conflict with two sides, or three sides, but hundreds of sides.

Jewish peace groups are primarily organizing against Jewish conservative groups. Palestinian groups that focus on the right of return have spent significant resources addressing parts of the left that disagree with them, so as to pull away groups that support a Palestinian state, but are insufficiently committed to RoR or a one state solution. Groups that represent diverse constituencies are confronted with a situation in which any cooperative effort or coalition effort might inadvertently lead to recriminations down the road from one side or the other. I have been in the room in all three cases and seen it happen.

Last Sunday I attended a meeting with an interesting group of DC insiders, Jewish and Palestinian peace activists, and experts in diplomacy from the Foreign Service and academia. They met in recognition of the fact that there aren't any coalition building efforts underway that connect different constituencies with different approaches to the conflict, but who share some basic principles. Don't expect this group to come out with a position on final status negotiations; but they might play a behind the scenes role to bring groups together in broad, ad-hoc coalitions around specific actions, such as encouraging a helpful Congressional resolution or elevating a particular piece of public education.

They will fit neatly in between the categories listed above. I hope they can serve well as the glue connecting those who understand the right pressure points with the movements that can apply the pressure.

For our purposes here at the Peace in the Middle East blog - how can we move AWAY from focusing on a preferred solution, and towards finding ways of working together on more limited goals that include a broader cross-section of those who support peace?