Can there be Peace without Justice?

Upon hearing of this project, I remember immediately feeling sceptical. Peace-making in the holy land; how many efforts had been made by previous and current governments on this, and how many were full of loaded agendas, and how many had  failed? Despite that, these candidates seemed different. They were grassroots workers, and not self-serving politicians.  They also seemed to hail from extremely diverse backgrounds and ethnicities within Palestine/Israel, which made their organisation much more different than others I had heard of. Bearing that in mind, I decided to clear my head of any judgements and attend the event with an open mind.

And so I did.

There was much to say about the event. The two speakers, Sheikh Bukhari and Eliyahu Mclean had a lot to say, much of which was new to attendees including their projects on “the big hug of Jerusalem” and “the way to Sulha”. It painted a different image of some of the interaction occurring between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, all of which proved that co-existence between the two communities was possible. Some of the stories they told of Jews, Muslims and Christians gathering together to speak of their shared history and cooking for one another during their religious celebrations were very touching.

However, this was also the problem. The Jerusalem Peacemakers approach to peace seemed baseless and ineffective. They gathered Palestinians and Israeli’s together to speak with one another as if they were in a completely different world, as if envisioning the future. But how can you envision and create a peaceful future if the realities on the ground aren’t addressed? How can you approach peace when the injustices being perpetrated aren’t being acknowledged? A prime example of this was presented in the form of one of the Peacemakers himself, who lived, and celebrated his activities in a settlement! How could he qualify his title as a “peacemaker” when settlements like these violate international law, and cause great obstacles to peace? Settlements like these are responsible for the extensive system of “by-pass” roads on which Palestinians are not allowed to travel (an example of gross apartheid), and which have caused agricultural loss for Palestinians. In addition, settlements consume a staggering amount of water resources, while the settlers themselves often carry out violent attacks against Palestinians and their property. These injustices were not being addressed at all in the talk. In fact, the conflict was spoken of as if it was a “misunderstanding” between the two communities, and described as if it was equal and proportionate. In addition, there was no mention of the history of the conflict, how it was evolving, what new dangers were presented to the scene and so on. They also focussed on religion, painting the conflict as if it was a religious one, when it is far from being that.

Finally, the speakers did not seem to present their audience with anything tangible to act upon. Dialogue was heavily emphasised...with no action. For students who were frustrated with the negative role their government or institutions had played in the conflict, and with the silence that followed the atrocities committed in Gaza, they were left unsatisfied yet again. The Jerusalem Peacemakers seemed to ask for no action, no condemnation...  nothing at all.  Their approach to peace and dialogue did not address the reality on the ground nor did it operate within a timeframe, and therefore came across as ineffective, unconstructive and naive.   The work Sheikh Bukhari and Eliyahu Mclean do in terms of getting Palestinians and Jews together to talk, share traditions and have fun is certainly impressive in showing that Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully; but we already knew that. So now let’s concentrate on the political reality that needs to be solved: by building a comprehensive approach and program for peace, that addresses real injustice and calls for tangible change.