Based on the findings of a forthcoming report,1 four types of
approaches for joint Palestinian-Israeli activism have been
identified, both on a general level and in Jerusalem: the
cooperation approach, the solidarity approach, the reconciliation
approach, and the coordinating together and working separately
approach.
The cooperation approach comprises two tracks: The first
concentrates on professional cooperation while abstaining from
interfering in political issues, such as the many projects in the
fields of health, education and the environment. The second
concentrates on political cooperation, such as Track II - various
joint projects aimed at developing scenarios for political
solutions, or a number of joint political campaign projects such as
Bringing Peace Together,2 which seeks to bring together different
peace movements to exchange views, and to develop joint visions and
actions. Other examples include the International Women's
Commission (IWC), a joint project whose aim is to promote women's
participation in conflict resolution; and Jerusalem Link, also a
joint women's project whose basic objectives run along similar
lines.
The solidarity approach brings left-wing Israeli organizations to
the Palestinian territories for the purpose of acting in solidarity
with the Palestinians. Examples include Gush Shalom and Ta'ayush,
among others.
The reconciliation approach targets the healing process. If under
the current circumstances, reconciliation between the two peoples
seems far-fetched, attempts are made to achieve reconciliation at
least between individuals. This is what the Bereaved Families
project is trying to do.
Finally, the coordinating together and working separately approach
is built on the assumption that it is essential to concentrate the
work for peace within the mainstream in both societies, while
leaving to the peace activists the responsibility of coordinating
joint activities with their respective mainstreams. This approach
tends to draw a good deal of criticism, especially to the
cooperation part. Peace activists are denounced as cooperating with
their counterparts on the opposite side instead of working with
their own mainstreams, with "love" growing between the peace
activists on either side while, all the time, the situation on the
ground is deteriorating and extremism is on the rise on both sides.
This approach includes political projects such as the
Nusseibeh-Ayalon Project. It also comprises all the projects where
the uni-national component predominates, while the bi-national
activities carry minor weight, or are confined to coordination
between the leaders of these projects.
Joint Activism in Jerusalem
The implementation of the four above-mentioned approaches in
Jerusalem took two forms: One is carried out through top-down
projects, the others through partial bottom-up participatory
projects.
The top-down joint projects are of two types. The first one is not
concerned with people's participation. Examples are a number of
research projects aimed mainly at developing scenarios about the
city's future without consulting with its population. Dozens of
scenarios were prepared in that direction. The second type of
projects deal with the city's population as "target groups" that
are to be addressed, or to be considered "beneficiaries" of
services to be offered.
Top-down joint projects are plagued with problems. For one thing,
they generate a lot of complaints among the target groups that see
themselves as being denied a participatory role in the planning of
activities. For another, there is little difference between these
projects and the official non-joint ones, including the municipal
projects that are implemented without prior consultation with the
population about their needs and concerns. Moreover, taking the
political context into consideration, such projects would be
regarded by the East Jerusalem Palestinians as going against their
rights. The same can be said about all the projects of the centers
and committees that are linked to the municipality in
Jerusalem.
The other top-down uni-national projects in the city are those
pertaining to the PLO factions and to Hamas. The projects run by
PLO factions concentrate on recruiting groups of people for a
specific political position, without asking their opinion on how to
develop programs that would be of benefit to them. Hamas's strategy
follows similar lines. The only difference is that it uses
religious institutions in order to recruit people for its
ideology.
In Jerusalem, the top-down approach to joint activism is combined
with the partial-participation approach. The latter enlists
people's participation when money is secured for a project. It is
limited to a specific project and ends when the project is
completed. Finally, this participation might be real, cosmetic or
take the shape of co-optation.3
The big absent element in Jerusalem is the concept and the practice
of full participation by the city's communities in joint
projects.
Before delving into suggestions on how to develop a process of
participation in the city, it might be worthwhile to summarize the
challenges of joint activism in Jerusalem.
Challenges
Among the various challenges facing joint activism in Jerusalem,
the following could be considered the most prominent:
A. The problem of "normalization." On the Palestinian side, the
censuring of those who work with and normalize relations with those
purported to be the enemy has always been present.
When it comes to Jerusalem, this anti-normalization discourse takes
an added dimension: Because of the closure and the restriction on
the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza,
the Palestinian Jerusalemites became willy-nilly their people's
representatives in joint projects. This has placed them in a very
delicate position where, on the one hand, they have to be careful
in presenting the needs of their own people, and on the other hand,
find themselves under attack from the other Palestinians because of
their meetings with Israelis and the alleged concessions they make
during these meetings.
B. The fact that joint projects in Jerusalem are confined to small
minorities on both sides - while the West Jerusalem population is
moving more to the right of Israeli politics, and part of the East
Jerusalem population is adopting more radical positions. It is true
that the majorities have not gone as far as to condone the use of
violence; yet it is equally valid to say that they are not
interested in joint activism because of their very tough opinions
regarding the other side.
C. The asymmetric relations between the two populations in the
city, including the fact that the Palestinian Jerusalemites play
the role of the lumpen proletarians in West Jerusalem
factories.
D. The facts on the ground not being conducive to joint activism in
the city - with settlement expansion inside and around East
Jerusalem, and with the wall separating Jerusalemites from other
Jerusalemites and from West Bank Palestinians. Adding to that are
the issues of ID confiscations, house demolitions and the absence
of zoning plans, among other problems.
E. The absence of political cover: The political leadership on
neither side is showing support for joint activism in Jerusalem. On
the Israeli side, the government's position is that the Jerusalem
issue has been postponed on the political level, so why support
joint civil-society activities that aim to promote sharing
Jerusalem as a capital for two states? Not to mention that some of
the Israeli government members are not willing to share Jerusalem -
"the eternal united capital of Israel" - with the
Palestinians.
On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian leadership is willing to
see Jerusalem shared, but they are not convinced that the joint
activities taking place in the city are effective enough to lead in
that direction. Moreover, all the Palestinian Authority (PA)
institutions in the city have been closed by the Israeli
authorities, despite the fact that they were conducting crucial
joint Palestinian-Israeli activities. Orient House is the most
notable example in this respect.
F. Subjective problems. In addition to the previously mentioned
objective challenges, other subjective ones confront joint activism
in Jerusalem. These include the problems of fragmentation as
opposed to diversity, and parallel work as opposed to coordination
of activities between the different actors and projects in the
city.
G. International interest. Due to the political postponement of the
Jerusalem issue, some international organizations hesitate to fund
joint activism in the city and uni-national projects alike.
Is a Joint Community-Based Agenda Possible?
With all the above-mentioned complexities, it seems that the point
of departure for changing the dynamics would be the creation of a
community-based participatory process in the city, aimed at
creating a community-based agenda.
The community-based approach is not only a bottom-up approach, but
it is also fully participatory from A to Z and at all the stages,
starting with need assessment, to planning, to organization and
team work, then to follow-ups, monitoring and evaluation. The
outcome of such a participatory process is development and,
chiefly, human development.
Another significance of the community-based approach is that it
fits in with human security concepts affirming that all people
should have equal access to all the issues pertaining to freedom
from fear and freedom from want.4
Last but not least, the community-based approach is about the
freedom of the communities (individuals and collectives) to
self-determination, including political matters and livelihood
issues. In concrete terms, this means that among the overall
Jerusalem community, some members will have the freedom to decide
to join Israel, while others could decide to join the PA. This
should be carried out without discrimination; i.e., without giving
the right of freedom of choice to one group and withholding it from
the other.
The community-based approach leads to the development of a
community-based agenda, where each community will have the right to
decide the components of their development agenda; then they will
decide freely how to work together in order to implement that
agenda. Here, each community will have the right to network and
cooperate with all the bodies that might help them implement their
agenda, whether these bodies reside inside or outside the
city.
Nonetheless, the question remains: Can the joint peace projects in
the city be transformed from a "peace industry" to community-based
developmental projects that will be able to meet the needs of the
city's population?