Avi Shlaim
Published in Spanish in El Pais, 9 September 2004
Of the countless symposia
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I have attended in the last 33
years, the one convened by Daniel Barenboim in Seville was by far the
most stimulating, constructive, and encouraging. The symposium
proceeded alongside the rehearsals of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra
that Barenboim created in 1999 with his friend Edward Said, the
Palestinian academic and critic, who died last September. The orchestra
was Said’s proudest achievement. It is made up of young Israeli
and Arab musicians who meet every summer for intensive rehearsals and a
concert tour. The reunion this year was tinged with sadness as it was
for an Edward Said memorial concert.
Participants in the
symposium included some militantly moderate Israelis and Palestinians,
Felipe Gonzalez, the former Socialist prime minister of Spain, and
members of Edward Said’s family. Mariam explained that her late
husband devoted to this project a large part of his life both because
of his commitment to the Palestinian cause and because of his belief in
the power of music to break down national barriers. Wadie added that
his father got involved in this workshop because of the unique talent
of Daniel Barenboim and because it offered an opportunity to do
something concrete and constructive involving the two sides. Najla
recalled that her father always used to tell her that he and his
generation are too deeply enmeshed in the history of this tragic
conflict and that the only hope of change lay with the young people of
her generation.
Culture is a huge
resource for power and Barenboim and Said used this resource towards a
positive end: peaceful co-existence between Jews and Arabs in
Palestine. Said described the Palestinians in a memorable phrase as the
victims of victims. The Palestinians, he emphasised, have to understand
the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish psyche, and especially the
obsession with security, if they are to make sense of Israel’s
attitude towards them. The Israelis, on the other hand, have to
acknowledge that the establishment of their state in 1948 involved a
monumental injustice to the Palestinians. What Said wanted was not to
draw a line over the past but to gain a broader understanding of the
roots of this conflict, to adopt a contrapuntal approach to their
parallel histories, as he liked to put it. This was a consistent thread
in Said’s writing from The Question of Palestine to his last
article. Said himself combined great humanity with a strong sense of
dignity. Cooperation between the two warring tribes in Palestine was
his ultimate goal but not at the expense of the dignity of his own
people. This stress on the need for mutual respect was an important
part of his legacy.
The discussions that
preceded the drafting of a declaration in Seville ranged far and wide
but there was complete consensus on one point: the interdependence
between the two parties to the conflict. Like it or not, Israelis and
Palestinians are simply fated to live together cheek by jowl on the
same small piece of land. It follows that what is good for one side is
good for the other. All previous efforts to solve this conflict failed
because they treated it as a zero-sum game whereby a gain by one side
is necessarily at the expense of the other side. Our aim was to move
from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game in which both sides
simultaneously reduce their costs and enhance their benefits. The ideas
we put forward are not directed against anyone; they are designed to
help the parties break out of the cycle of violence, bloodshed, and
mutual destruction. We are in the construction business, not in the
destruction business. Our purpose was not to propose new solutions but
to offer a new definition of the old problem. Together we worked to
create a new narrative of one of the most bitter and protracted
conflicts of modern times.
It was noted at the
outset that while the destinies of the two parties are inextricably
linked, the imbalance in their power could hardly be more pronounced.
Israel is a sovereign state and a military superpower whereas the
Palestinians are a weak and vulnerable community still at the stage of
struggling for statehood. This enormous imbalance of power is
ultimately injurious to both peoples. It permitted the crushing of
Palestinian institutions, the abuse of human rights, and a relentless
assault on their collective identity. On the Israeli side, the
occupation brings no security, undermines the democratic foundations,
and tarnish the country’s image abroad. As Karl Marx observed, a
people that oppress another cannot itself remain free. Real peace
between Israel and the Palestinians can only be based on freedom and
democracy on both sides and on a relationship between equals.
Given the asymmetry of
power between the two sides, a voluntary agreement between them is
unattainable. A third party is needed to exert pressure and to offer
incentives for compromise. America as the sole surviving superpower is
the obvious party to play this part but its record does not inspire
confidence. In the first place, the Palestinians do not view America as
an honest broker because of its strong bias in favour of Israel. Since
the attack on the twin towers on 9/11, America has tilted even further
towards Israel. The Bush administration seems to accept Ariel
Sharon’s preposterous argument that the war he is waging against
the Palestinian people is part of America’s global war on terror.
True, President Bush joined with his allies in the Quartet in launching
the Roadmap that envisaged an independent Palestinian state alongside
Israel by the end of 2005. But there was no real commitment and no
follow-up. Bush compounded the problem by endorsing Sharon’s plan
for unilateral disengagement from Gaza and the de facto annexation of
large chunks of the West Bank. This is not a contribution to the
Roadmap but the antithesis of a negotiated settlement.
It was against this
background that all the participants in the symposium, led by Barenboim
and Gonzalez, joined in a passionate plea for a more active European
role in settling the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.
Europe has the moral duty, the direct interest, and the material
capability to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. The part
that the European powers played in bringing about the conflict between
Jews and Arabs in Palestine imposes on them the moral duty to do
everything in their power to bring about a just and equitable solution.
But this is not simply a question of morality. Europe is home to a
significant number of Jews and a more substantial number of Muslims.
The festering conflict in the Middle East is feeding hatred,
intolerance, and anti-Semitism in Europe. If Europe does not go to the
Middle East to tackle the problem at its roots, the repercussions of
the conflict will be felt ever more strongly in Europe. Finally,
European Union is the principal provider to foreign aid to the
Palestinian Authority and Israel’s largest trading partner. It is
thus well-placed to bring its influence to bear on the diplomatic front.
The sound of classical
European music provided the most exhilarating backdrop for to the
discussions of the symposium. Raised in enmity, the exceptionally
talented young men and women set an example by their devotion to the
demands of their common craft. Together they play with wonderful energy
and unanimity in an orchestra that is larger than life. When looking at
the orchestra, it is utterly impossible to tell the Israelis from the
Arabs or Palestinians. Indeed, the workshop is a brilliantly successful
experiment in breaking down national stereotypes and in artistic
collaboration across the battle-lines.
Neither the Israelis nor
the Arabs need the other to put on an impressive performance. But the
collaborative and cosmopolitan character of the project enhances the
quality of their music. The West-Eastern Divan Orchestra is thus a
beacon of hope on the dismal political landscape of the Middle East.
The challenge lies in translating this imaginative artistic concept
into the realm of politics. No one under-estimated the magnitude of the
challenge, and yet there was a palpable sense of optimism in Seville.
By the personal example he set, both in the workshop and in the
symposium, Daniel Barenboim infected many of us with his confidence
that the impossible is easier to achieve than the difficult.
Back