‘Peace Discourse’ from a Palestinian Persperctive
an opinion article from the “Race, Power and Peacebuilding” report
The term ‘conflict’ is widely employed in development discourse about Israel and the Palestinians.It has created a distorted view of reality which suggests an abstract symmetry between parties.There is actually a huge political, military and economic inequality between Israel and Palestine and in the West Bank, where the Arab Educational Institute operates.
Using the term ‘conflict’ filters out the reality of direct and indirect occupation.
When speaking about ‘conflicts’ the emphasis is often on mitigating them or taking their roots away. However, Palestinian development projects, such as the Arab Educational Institute (AEI) are unable to deal with these root causes – namely the occupation itself. The role of organisations such as AEI is limited to developing Early Warning and Response Systems that, for example, allow the local population to warn each other about checkpoint violence by soldiers.
In addition, peacebuilding jargon anesthetizes the oppression of Palestinians in real-life situations of inequality in the eyes of the international community. For instance, calling areas dominated by the Israeli occupation army and settlers ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘marginalized’, removes the question of responsibility and the power dynamics involved. This may be convenient from the viewpoint of depoliticizing development language and thus making it acceptable to larger groups of people, but it creates the false suggestion that no acts happen that intentionally marginalize Palestinians.
Similarly, Palestinian resistance has been routinely equalized to ‘terrorism’, following the Israeli army’s terminology which is reflected in international media reports and applied in much academic and aid jargon. How deep this terminology has roots is evident from Palestinian NGOs stressing that their projects are ‘nonviolent’ – as if to distinguish their projects from any violent resistance, the last implicitly considered illegitimate notwithstanding the context of occupation. Associating Palestine with ‘terrorism’ removes any notion of Palestinian self-identification and diminishes their cultural, social and political identity.
This ties into the widely held assumption that especially Palestinians should deliver on ‘peace’, and that opposition to negotiations, even when these essentially sustain the unequal status quo, is not acceptable. A distorted view is created when focus is directed at the need for ‘peace negotiations’ while colonization of the West Bank and East-Jerusalem continues and internationally no measures are taken to stop it.
‘Peace discourse’ thus functions to hide and justify colonial power dynamics.
It is necessary to present alternatives, such as development and aid workers talking about the need for a ‘just peace’ in which the Palestinian perspective and reality are fully incorporated – a peace not only as a distant prospect, but as a means to direct politics here and now, on the ground.
‘Just peace’ or ‘justice and peace’ are concepts which clarify that peace can only be reached through justice and rights. While the occupation should be included in development discourse, (occupied) Palestine and the need for solidarity should be at the centre of it.
Written by
The Arab Educational Institute – Pax Christi Association
Resources:
Visit The Arab Educational Institute – Pax Christi’s website https://aeicenter.org/ & their Facebook page.
In October and November 2021, Peace Direct, in collaboration with the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), and United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY) convened a global online consultation to discuss structural racism in the peacebuilding sector. The findings established the extent of the problem across the wider humanitarian, development and peacebuilding sectors. Our aim for this report is to probe in more detail the issues as they relate specifically to peacebuilding.
