AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

guilt may be equalized (to some extent); the parties meet as moral
equals. Even better would be to build moral equality around
positive acts.
Hence, the argument would be for soldiers on both sides to
disarm and then meet again, but this time to construct, not to
destruct. Then victims could meet with victims, COs with COs,
etc./80/ And this could serve as preparations for perpetrator and
victim meeting each other, both of them together trying to turn
their tragedy into something meaningful through acts of
cooperation, rather than putting some third parties in-between.
Once when the present author was suggesting this approach in
Beirut there was an interesting objection: this does not work
here. In Lebanon there were not two parties fighting each other,
but seventeen. Ammunition was used like pop-corn, peppering
houses, obviously very rarely hitting the openings, leaving
bullet-scars all over. The response could be:
No problem. Get one former fighter from each group, give
them a course in masonry, put seventeen ladders parallel, have the
seventeen climb up, repairing the facades as they descend. Turn
the high numbers into an advantage. What a TV opportunity --
provided there is also a spiritual side to the joint work.
And that last point is the crux of the matter. Rebuilding is
concrete, reconciliation is mainly spiritual. What matters is the
togetherness at work, reflecting on the mad destruction, shoulder
to shoulder and mind to mind. The preceding four approaches could
give rich texture to the exercise:
Joint sorrow would seep in even if rebuilding can also be
fun. Reflection on futility would enter. For this to happen
those who did the destruction should also do the construction,
84