Peacemaking: It Takes Two To Tango.
In The Palestine-Israeli Conflict- A Very Short Introduction, Martin Bunton traces the tumultuous recent history between Israel and Palestine. Bunton reduces this conflict to a struggle between two nations over land.[1] In my journey to this region, the conflict was palpable, and I was struck by the irony of the prevalence of conflict in “The Holy Land.”
What I Knew About Israel and Palestine Before Oct. 7
My knowledge of Israel and Palestine is largely rooted in my study of Scripture and my journey to the region. I knew of the ancient biblical conflict and experienced signs of conflict when I travelled to Israel and Palestine in 2014. Signs of conflict dominate the landscape. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is recognized as the place of both the crucifixion and the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. The church has been a major pilgrimage center for Christians worldwide. Yet this holy site has been a place of conflict, violence and even bloodshed. Six Christian denominations try to share control over the church, a complex agreement that has contributed to fighting among the groups.[2] But perhaps the greatest sign of conflict for me was the wall that separates. A wall that separates Palestinians even from their families as well as access to necessities such as clean water and proper medical care. The wall even separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem. Then there is the ominous, and very public, presence of teenage Israeli soldiers armed and on guard, ready for a Palestinian attack. There is evidence of conflict everywhere and it hangs heavy in the air. What I assumed, was that the prevalent conflict dates to biblical roots. However, Bunton locates this conflict in a different source.
What The Book Helps Me Understand That I Did Not Know Before
Bunton does not believe this to be an ancient religious conflict but rather traces this conflict back to 1897. In this year the World Zionist Organization identified Palestine as the location to build a Jewish home in which they could become an independent state.[3] This is an important argument in the text because, as Bunton emphasizes, “It underlines the fact that this hundred (or so) years’ conflict is neither rooted in ancient and religious animosities nor even are its origins so much Middle Eastern as European.”[4]
Bunton demonstrates this by dividing the book into six clear, chronologically ordered chapters. These are: The Ottoman era (1897-1917); British Palestine (1917-1937); The partition of Palestine (1937-1940); Atzamut and Nakba (1947-1967); Occupation (1967-1987); and The Peace Process (1987-2007). He views these as historical cycles that seem to offer some hope of resolution but only serve to tighten the Gordian knot.[5] The Gordian knot is identified as, “the mutually exclusive territorial claims of two competing nationalisms, Palestinian and Israeli.”[6]
While the book provides a panoramic view of their history, I want to focus particularly on the rise and fall of the peace process. Every attempt at peace between Palestine and Israel failed for numerous reasons such as the continued expansion of Jewish settlements, the influence of extremists on both sides who framed the conflict in religious terms, unwillingness to compromise, lack of trust and international interference. Recognizing two states with clear boundaries is the best solution in the author’s view. However, he believes that this is a solution with fading hopes.[7]
How I Am Processing What I’ve learned
While hope is fading, hope should not be lost. In another Gordian knot-type conflict, a measure of peace has been reached. In reading the autobiographical tome, Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela I was intrigued by the work of two political opponents to achieve peace in South Africa. Mandela found a political ally in FW de Klerk, a newly elected president of South Africa. Peace talks with former National Party governments had never progressed. However, in one of his first speeches, Mandela recounts, “Mr. de Klerk said his government was committed to peace and that it would negotiate with any other group committed to peace.”[8] In a subsequent meeting with de Klerk, Mandela noted, “From the first I noted that Mr. de Klerk listened to what I had to say. This was a novel experience. National Party leaders generally heard what they wanted to hear in discussions with black leaders, but Mr. de Klerk seemed to be making an attempt to truly understand.”[9] Two leaders, committed to peace, were able to lead their country to a bloodless dissolution of apartheid and a measure of peace that continues to be worked out today. While the scenario was different, the political conflict in South Africa seemed equally impossible to solve. South Africa has also proven that it will take generations to work out peace in everyday life. And while the circumstances and political players are different, perhaps the path forward for the Palestinian and Israeli conflict is the same.
Looking Ahead
Indeed, as Bunton concludes, the path toward peace for Israel lies in the hands of the leaders. The failure to reach peace is a failure of leadership. In his conclusion, he states emphatically, “What are lacking are the political will and capacity of Israeli and Palestinian leaders to implement the solution. As long as the leaders are left to fix it themselves, the chances of a diplomatic breakthrough appear low.”[10] If the dissolution of apartheid in South Africa by Mandala and de Klerk provides an example of leaders committed to peacemaking as the solution, Bunton’s assessment is correct. There is a need for primary leaders on both sides of the conflict who are resolutely committed to peacemaking above their personal interests. While this is difficult and rare to achieve, it is not without hope.
As I look ahead I will lament the violence and death of the innocents and will pray for peace. My prayer is that God would raise up peacemakers in Israel and Palestine to cut the Gordian knot that has been formed and tightened over time so that there would be peace. Where there is ongoing conflict there is likely a failure of leadership to make peace. “It takes two to tango”, as the old axiom states. It takes leaders on both sides of a conflict to be committed to the greater goal of peace. Secondly, as I lead in a denominational role, I will provide space for discussion for people on both sides of the issue while seeking to take a peacemaking stance. My goal would be to model peacemaking within the context in which I lead.
[1] Martin P. Bunton, The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction, First edition, Very Short Introductions 359 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013). Kindle, 19.
[2] Hiba Yazbek, “At Christianity’s Holiest Site, Rival Monks Struggle to Turn Other Cheek,” The New York Times, April 15, 2023, sec. World, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/world/middleeast/orthodox-easter-holy-sepulcher.html.
[3] Bunton, The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Kindle, 20.
[4] Bunton. Kindle, 28.
[5] Bunton. Kindle, 19.
[6] Bunton. Kindle, 24.
[7] Bunton. Kindle, P.177.
[8] Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography (New York [ u.a. ]: Little, 2013), 552.
[9] Mandela, 555.
[10] Bunton, The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Kindle, 150.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.16 responses to “Peacemaking: It Takes Two To Tango.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Graham for your phenomenal post and reminder of the peacemaking process in South Africa.
From your reading of that text, how did Mandela and de Klerk rally the fringes of their movements for peace? What might that look like in this current conflict?
Good question, Ryan. Mandela reached out to his leadership and underwent an evaluation from them. There were rumours that he had gone soft and been bought off. He noted that the best way to refute the rumours was to be honest and direct about everything with them. His autobiography doesn’t detail what de Klerk did. However, de Klerk did start to actively dismantle apartheid, visible signs of his intention.
Hi Graham, I appreciate that you brought the focus of your blog to the failure of leadership in ending the war in the Middle East. I wonder if the fact that both Nelson Mandella and de Klerk were Christians brought the possible to fruition easier that it will be for Netanyahu and Hamas. I am curious of your thoughts on that.
Thanks for responding to my post, Diane. No doubt Christianity influenced this process. I’m sure it helped and I know that there are other significant dynamics at play. However, I read a Washington post article that stated that both men became bitter antagonists through the process of negotiating a peace.
Graham, good idea to focus on the lack of effective – or perhaps motivated – leadership as the key failure point. I appreciate your comparison to the South African problem of apartheid, and how two leaders determined to achieve peace were able to find the path.
The one problem I see with the focus on leadership is the threat of terrorism. Organizations like Hamas can easily disrupt any true attempts for peace.
As you look at the realities of this conflict, what hope would you like to give or suggest to those who are living in the middle of it? Do you have any applications in your own context for that kind of hope?
Thanks, Debbie.
Interestingly the ANC was condemned as a terrorist movement by the SA, the US and the UK governments. I’m not making a comparison, but I think there were many powers at work here that could complicate matters.
As an outsider, I’m reluctant to offer hope to those suffering through this. I only have hope of a peaceful resolution if leaders come to the table with the objective of pursuing peace. Ultimately, I would offer the hope the Christ to transform, heal and reconcile people to God and one another.
In my own context… marriages that are healed, and churches that are riddled with conflict, reconcile. Nothing as complex as national or international peace.
Graham,
As always, I appreciate your perspective and reminder that both parties need to come to the table to discuss and yet it seems that over the course of history, both parties were not always invited to the table in the first place. When this occurred historically there never was going to be peace. It makes me wonder if the leaders on both sides actually want to see peace achieved or if the unrest actually helps keep them in power? I do look forward to Cape Town and learning from more of your experiences there.
Adam, I wonder the same thing about leaders. Do they actually want peace? I can’t really answer the question but according to Bunton, at the time of writing the book, it’s been a failure of leadership. I also know that leadership plays a key role in resolving conflict and reducing anxiety in family systems, according to our friend Friedman.
Thanks so much for your post and responses to the questions raised. Given your role in a denominational leadership position, how do you envision fostering and modelling peacemaking in your community? How do you plan to navigate the diverse and often conflicting perspectives that may arise during these discussions?
Glyn, there are plenty of opportunities for peacemaking in my role.
Here some are principles that I would seek to employ…
1. Build relational bridges with others rather than put up walls.
2. Honour and respect the person even when there’s disagreement.
3. Tackle issues not people
4. Dialogue rather than argue
5. Seek a solution rather than a win
6. Pray for wisdom, discernment and courage
7. Don’t take personal offense
8. Seek to understand and listen first before speaking – ask questions.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. – Romans 12.8
Thanks for adding the ANC violence and terrorist status. There were also other actors, such as Desmond Tutu whom God had to stir and convict to bring him back to SA, to be a part of the solution.
I too support the call to be an “everyday peacemaker” in one’s own context, modelling Romans 12:8 and 2 Cor 5:17-21 (ambassadors of God’s reconciliation).
In a globalized world, how would you frame the challenge of promoting peace to all of us who are outside the region, yet constantly challenged to “pick a side”?
Thanks, Joel. There were definitely other players in the SA situation but I chose to focus on the two. Tutu,s book on forgiveness is fantastic as well. I would love to learn more of his story.
Your question is interesting and challenging. I would say:
1. Forget all that you’ve seen on social media or mainstream media. If you do engage have a healthy skepticism toward these forms of media.
2. Go on a learning journey. Read books, get to know everyday people who live there or have lived there. In essence ask more questions.
3. Don’t post on social media.
4. Pray for the region.
These are a few things I’d offer. I’m there are more.
Hi Graham,
Firstly, this was a fantastic post. Thank you for your thoughtful insight. Interestingly enough, my first trip to Israel was in 2014. I wrote briefly about this trip in my post, and we shared nearly identical feelings regarding the conflict and its palpability throughout the land.
Bunton’s book introduced me to the term Gordian knot, which you referenced in your post. I read about the knot and found the Ancient Greek legend fascinating. Ultimately, whoever could untie the knot would rule.
In your denominational role since Oct. 7th, have you observed a push to have more dialogue concerning the conflict, or has there been hesitation to initiate these more challenging conversations?
Elyse, Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, we’ve not had a conversation about the conflict. Perhaps it’s time for one.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for sharing about your experience in South Africa.
The conflict in the middle east is so complex because while it’s true that it’s a failure of leadership to make peace, but with both sides believing (for good reasons) that the other will not reciprocate,
With the unlikelihood of both sides being able to come to peace, how do you see a place for other countries to be involved in the peace negotiations?
It’s a good question, Christy. It seems that when others got involved in the past the knot was tightened despite the hope it presented. That’s not to suggest we shouldn’t try but I really don’t have a great answer to this one.
Great question that is worthy of more thought and prayer on my part.