Friday, August 19, 2011

Rconciling the Irreconcilable

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

A political constellation was conducted to look at the issue of fostering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Specially, the focus question was how can America enhance its role in fostering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? While the historical roots of the conflict go back 3 millenniums American involvement dates back to the middle of the twenty century after the British withdrawal from Palestine. Our official efforts to broker peace started in earnest after the 1967 war. The high water mark of those efforts was realized in September 17, 1978 by President Carter when a treaty between Israel and Egypt was signed by Menachem Begin and Anwar El Sadat at Camp David.
While there have been other successes, such as the establishment of the Palestinian Authority through the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 and the initiation of the “two-state solution,” a viable and lasting peace has yet to be realized. Despite significant investments of time, talent and money in the region by the American government for close to half a century peace has yet to breakout. Why should we care? Why should we even keep trying? Three numbers: 9/11.  American diplomats in the Middle East have admitted that our fate is tied to the fate of the Palestinian people. As long as the conflict remains unresolved the stability of a very unstable region will be even more at risk. The resolution of the conflict, even partial steps in that direction like the Camp David Accords, represent huge foreign policy victories for the incumbent US administration and reduce the threat to our homeland security.     
8 participants attended a political constellation session to explore this issue. Most had limited experience as representatives. Only one besides the facilitator had spent time in Israel or West Bank/Gaza.  Warm up constellations were conducted to help familiarize the participants with the energetic aspects of being in a state of conflict.  Actual personal conflicts that participants were experiencing were constellated. The participants appreciated the insights they gained. The facilitator emphasized that the archetype of conflict between individuals or groups is visceral and personal. Most of us can relate to polarized dynamics of conflict that are felt as helplessness or powerful and fearful or angry. These feelings are usually played out in roles or projections around victim, perpetrator or rescuer. The warm up constellations demonstrated that when we more objective about the conflict and less caught up in our judgments and feelings new possibilities surface that provide more insight and even resolution. Would it be possible to apply this principle to conflicts between groups over scarce resources like land and water?   The participants brainstormed on the number of different “actors” involved in Israeli-Palestinian conflict and came up about 25. The list was narrowed down to a top 8 that included: Israeli settlers, Israeli Palestinians, Israelis, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, holy sites (sacred to Christian, Jewish, Islam and other religions), the Holocaust, the American public and the international community.
The representatives were handed cards with one of the groups written on it but asked to hold off looking at the cards so they did not know which group they represented. Then they were told to find their place and stand there with no agenda but to notice what they noticed. The group arranged itself in the following manner (image to be inserted)
While still in the mode of a blind constellation the representatives were asked to report out. The representative for the Israeli Palestinians felt anxious and upset. The Holocaust felt a connection with the person behind her but also heavy and detached. The group circled up in the middle seemed interested in each other while the Israelis and Palestinians watched in a somewhat detached manner from a distance. Another unnamed representative (Sol) was added who felt drawn to the Palestinians and moved to where he could stand beside her.
He expressed the felt sense that she was key to a positive outcome. The group was asked to notice what shifted with the addition of the new representative. The US felt very attached to the representative for the Holocaust and moved close beside her. The Israeli Palestinians felt somewhat better and turned towards the group. All the representatives were asked to look at their cards and say who they were. The new representative was a solution that leads to peace. He felt that the Israelis themselves would need to come to terms with and acknowledge the trauma of the Holocaust. (image to be inserted)

With this acknowledgment the Holocaust was able to turn and feel more connected to the group. Another representative (48/67) was added to represent the trauma of the Palestinians who were expelled from their homeland in 1948 and 1967. When he was added the representative for the Israeli Palestinian felt much better. The solution stated that both Palestinians and the Israelis needed to see and acknowledge the pain and trauma of their past. However, neither of the two felt much interest in relating to their own or the other’s painful past. The American public felt almost obsessively protective of the Holocaust. She realized that her fixation gave her a sense of moral superiority.
As long as she held on to that payoff she could not see the others, their sufferings or the solution. The solution could see and felt connected to Israelis, Palestinians and Israel Palestinians and their respective traumas.
During the closing debrief it was stated that the shift that needed to occur to enhance Americas effectiveness in facilitating peace was about letting go of its sense of moral superiority. It was not clear exactly where this sense came from, perhaps from its role as a defeater of Nazi Germany or feeling like the protector and rescuer of those who suffered from the Holocaust. However, until the American public was able to acknowledge the oppression and suffering of every group in the system, it could not expect the Israelis and the Palestinians to acknowledge and grieve the suffering they have experienced and caused each other. This mutual acknowledgement on an emotional level would help open up the space for real negotiations and the resulting agreements that both sides could live with.
 



HS
                   

Jew
 



Pal
Int
 

US
IP
 





Hol


Hol
 





HS
                   


Jew
 





Pal

Int
 

US



    

  

   
US

Set

Hol






HS
                  


Jew
 





Pal

Int
 


IP
 


4667

sol