26.10.2012 Views

The Contribution of Women to Peace and Reconciliation

The Contribution of Women to Peace and Reconciliation

The Contribution of Women to Peace and Reconciliation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

with access <strong>to</strong> political parties <strong>and</strong> institutions, while Israeli women had<br />

less backing from their own political structures.<br />

In fact, following the assassination <strong>of</strong> Rabin (1995), <strong>and</strong> the coming <strong>to</strong><br />

power <strong>of</strong> the Likud Party in Israel, a few Palestinian women, notably lead -<br />

ers <strong>of</strong> women’s organizations, have raised the idea that it would be<br />

more effective <strong>to</strong> build connections with women <strong>of</strong> the Likud Party. <strong>The</strong>y<br />

assumed it would be more productive, <strong>and</strong> more <strong>of</strong> dialogue between<br />

equals, simply because <strong>of</strong> the easier mutual access <strong>to</strong> power.<br />

What good will this peace dialogue bring for me?<br />

<strong>The</strong> basic clash which accompanied the entire post-Oslo process was<br />

over the fundamental legitimacy <strong>of</strong> Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. <strong>The</strong> question:<br />

Was dialogue still legitimate only as part <strong>of</strong> the anti-occupation<br />

struggle for Palestinian liberation in line with the “traditional” PLO think -<br />

ing, which saw dialogue as a <strong>to</strong>ol for convincing the Israeli public <strong>and</strong><br />

decision-makers <strong>of</strong> the legitimacy <strong>of</strong> Palestinian rights? Or, should the<br />

definition <strong>of</strong> “legitimate dialogue” be widened <strong>to</strong> include other issues<br />

such as state-building, democracy, non-violence or even reconciliation?<br />

Those supporting the first position criticized the dialogue as “apolitical”,<br />

“identity” <strong>and</strong> “reconciliation” oriented, as a “normalization” that legitimized<br />

Israel <strong>and</strong> provided a fig-leaf for the continuation <strong>of</strong> the occupation.<br />

Those advocating the second position claimed that the dialogue<br />

should be neither contingent on political agreement between the sides<br />

nor held hostage <strong>to</strong> the peace process; i.e., that dialogue couldn’t be<br />

postponed until such time as the occupation ended. It is also clear that<br />

while the Palestinians involved in the dialogue were motivated largely<br />

by the more political <strong>and</strong> collectivist agenda, Israelis were motivated<br />

large ly by a more individualistic, “post-conflict” <strong>and</strong> “apolitical” agenda.<br />

<strong>The</strong> controversial interdependence between the civil society engaged<br />

in peace work <strong>and</strong> the political level has been viciously used <strong>and</strong> mis -<br />

used by the politicians.<br />

196

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!