War in the Middle East: When political leadership fails
Viewing the conflict in zero-sum terms is not an option
The post War in the Middle East: When political leadership fails appeared first on The Mail & Guardian.
The images of the terror attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October are now etched into the global consciousness, along with those of the collapsing Twin Towers, the Yugoslav civil war and other horrors.
There can be no rational justification for the terror attacks by Hamas on Israel earlier this month. But there are lessons for leadership on conflict resolution.
What lessons the world should have learnt by now from all these atrocities and disregard for our shared humanity is that cycles of violence need to be broken. Divisions and oppression lead to uprisings and that violence provokes retaliation and leads to more violence. Civilians on both sides of the conflict pay a heavy price when political leaders are not willing or fail to negotiate a settlement that takes the interests of both parties into account.
But Hamas is a terror organisation and as such has no place at the negotiating table.
The causes for the Israel-Palestine conflict and the now raging war between Israel and Hamas, which has already cost too many innocent lives and has the potential to spread like wildfire through the region, are deep rooted and complex. While one school of thought argues the conflict is about land, territory and political influence, the other side argues that the conflict is about identity, culture and religion. The truth lies somewhere in-between, making it even more difficult to get to grips with the complexity of the conflict and finding a way to deal with it.
Moving away zero-sum terms
The escalation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, provoked by Hamas’s attack on 7 October during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah and the retaliation by the Israeli forces, has all the ingredients of a final show-down resembling the final confrontation in a classic Western movie between a protagonist and an antagonist who have been in a conflictual relationship from the beginning. After several setbacks and close victories for the one or other side, the last chapter of the movie starts when the problem in the story boils over, forcing the characters to confront it, allowing all the elements of the story to come together, leading to the climax, the answer to the dramatic question and, to the relief of the audience, the end of the conflict.
Most Westerns end with the elimination of the bad guy — usually gunned down by the good guy in full sight of frightened bystanders — after he tried some dirty tricks to kill the good guy first.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is not a movie and it is a matter of individual perspective, often determined by one’s own identity and socialisation, to take the one or other side and pick selectively those arguments that support and serve this perspective.
The war has polarised and radicalised people not only in the Middle East but all over the world and it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate through a discussion without being labelled pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. To be German doesn’t help either.
What people should be able to agree on is that there must be zero tolerance for terrorists, that even a war needs to follow certain rules, that international law must still be respected, that Palestinians and Hamas are not one and the same and that both parties, represented by credible and legitimate leadership, need to enter negotiations and find a peaceful way forward. Here the international community can play a meaningful role in mediating such negotiations and supporting this process.
Credible leadership required
Different from the dramaturgy of a movie script, the conflict in the Middle East can’t be resolved by eliminating and destroying the antagonist as Hamas wants its followers to believe. While the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict is often described as an existential one between two peoples — two identity groups — each of which claims parts of the same territory for its homeland and political state, the future existence of one people can’t come at the expense of the existence of the other.
Although it is dangerous to draw parallels or make comparisons, the South African experience with negotiating a settlement that enabled the country to transition peacefully toward a constitutional democracy has many lessons to offer for other troubled countries and regions, including the Middle East. One lesson is key — credible political leadership was committed to finding a common solution. Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, representing very different constituencies, realised that acknowledging the other’s identity and existence does not jeopardise one’s own.
To move away from viewing a conflict in zero-sum terms — either “we” eliminate “them” or “they” will eliminate “us” — is paramount. Strong and credible leadership on both sides is required to end the suffering and prevent the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries and the region.
Christina Teichmann is a political consultant.
The post War in the Middle East: When political leadership fails appeared first on The Mail & Guardian.