|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Reconciliation Part 3
This is the third and final installment on reconciliation between Messianic Jews and Palestinian believers in Israel. It is excerpted from a speech originally given in November 2005 at Fuller Theological Seminary. Salim Munayer is the founder of Musalaha, a reconciliation ministry based in Jerusalem.
 | |
|
True reconciliation can work on several different models, but one model exemplifies what the ministry of Musalaha does in bringing Palestinian believers and Messianic Jews together.
John Dawson, president of the International Reconciliation Coalition, outlines four key steps:
1. Confession: Stating the truth; acknowledging the unjust or hurtful actions of myself or my people group toward other people.
2. Repentance: Turning from unloving to loving actions.
3. Reconciliation: Expressing and receiving forgiveness and pursuing intimate fellowship with previous enemies.
4. Restitution: Attempting to restore that which has been damaged or destroyed and seeking justice wherever we have power to act or to influence those in authority to act. (Dawson, 1998)
Biblical reconciliation
In our experience helping to reconcile Messianic Jews and Palestinian believers, this model needs to take place in the context of relationship to get to the stage of confession.
As relationships are built, people are able to proceed through these steps. This is the strength of the ‘sulha’ system—it incorporates a culturally appropriate context from which to enter into confession, forgiveness, reparations and reconciliation.
The sulha system has weaknesses as society is changing with urbanization and modernization. Sometimes resolution is subjected to the ability of the leaders or a power game of weak and strong. As can be the case in the Arab villages, the weaker family is subjected to higher penalty for offenses.
The challenge is to incorporate the elements of these models that bring reconciliation and also pursue a fair and just resolution to conflict. Both these models provide answers to those who question the connection between reconciliation and justice. While some believe that reconciliation takes place at the cost of justice, it is evident from these models that pursuing justice and restoration is a natural part of the reconciliation process.
Stages in reconciliation
At Musalaha we have observed several stages in the process of reconciliation among believers. The process is continuous—people advance through the stages and at times return to previous ones. Some enter the process and do not persist; others leave and then re-enter. These trends are similar to those noted by other organizations such as Givat Haviva (http://www.givathaviva.org.il/english/) who work in conflict resolution between Palestinians and Israelis.
Stage 1. In the first stage, people from both sides are often willing to meet, after some hesitation.
In the initial meeting people are curious and interested. They have fun, and they’re often enthusiastic to participate in an activity together. There is a sense of idealism and euphoria, expressions of “We are no different,” and “We are all one body.”
Participants also express reservations. Givat Haviva, while conducting a joint course with Palestinian and Israeli university students, noted that in the beginning stages, participants questioned the validity of the encounter: What can really be achieved by this meeting?
While Israelis found value in building personal relationships, Palestinian participants questioned the impact of personal relationships on political conflicts (Friedman, 2000). In response to this, we at Musalaha developed the Desert Encounter as a model for deepening relationships and continued participation in the process.
Stage 2. Moving to the next stage entails a revelation of their feelings on issues, the background and context of their perspectives, and becoming more open about grievances.
The fact that Palestinians and Israelis feel differently about issues now comes up to the surface. Several Israeli leaders expressed to us that many Israeli Jews feel overwhelmed at the Palestinians’ stories, their political and theological opinions,and at how strongly they express their grievances. He explained that suddenly, the power dynamic has changed and they are put on the “weak side.”
Givat Haviva notes that Israelis are surprised by the shift in power balance. Outside the encounter, in the real world, they have majority and power. In smaller environments, where they are no longer the dominant group, the dynamics are different. “The Jews have difficulty with the gap that has been revealed to them, between their self-concept… and their image as it is reflected in the way Arabs perceive them” (Ibid.).
For Palestinians, the equal footing that they experience in an encounter with Israelis is lost when they return and re-enter the political realities of their situation. This raises the question of what is gained from the meeting if there is no change on the ground.
Stage 3. The third stage usually finds the Israeli participants in a process of withdrawal. They often back out of meetings because they see it as hopeless, or the issues become too overwhelming and painful for them.
As a result, Israelis state their own accusations and grievances against the Palestinians. They also share their strongly held theological and political positions. Each side reacts by saying that the other’s withdrawal from the process was obvious and inevitable, that they will never understand and never accept one another. Each side accuses the other that they are blind to reality and to the truth of the Bible.
Rather than reaching a greater understanding of one another, this stage often confirms each sides’ positions. They find explanations and reasons for the way things are; but if they do not move beyond this stage, they reach an impasse. In this stage they feel that they will never agree and the process will lead nowhere. The parties separate into their corners, and the process loses steam.
Stage 4. Those who remain in the process realize that they are bound to live alongside one another. At this point, people understand that both sides have genuine charges and grievances against each other. They also recognize the shortcomings of their own people, that their side also has contributed to the breakdown of relationships and the violence of the conflict.
They realize that they must find a way to correct and restore the relationship between the two peoples. They are willing to take serious steps to do so. Those steps include learning one another’s history and life experiences, listening and accepting differing perspectives and perceptions.
“Reconciliation requires an ability to identify with the enemy’s view of the meaning and causes of the conflict, an acknowledgement of guilt for injustices committed by one party against the other and abandoning the desire for revenge…. Reconciliation puts both parties on an equal footing, declares that both sides are both victim and perpetrator, and enables them to agree on a common denominator and leave the bitter conflict behind, together with the reciprocal atrocities that it spawned” (Benziman).
Believers can also learn from each other about God and about Biblical truths. Making progress in reconciliation requires courage and risk. It means becoming vulnerable to “‘the enemy.” It means being honest, sensitive and willing to listen.
As participants go through this process of reconciliation, the issue of personal and ethnic identity plays a major role. It is our observation that people who move through the stages of reconciliation have developed a more secure identity, becoming more sure of who they are in their ethnicity and in the Lord.
At the same time, they are more willing to embrace others and to work at restoring relationships. They are willing to deal with the issues and to correct the damage that has been done.
Bibliography
Benziman, U. 2005. “Needed: Reconciliation.” Haaretz. October 13, 2005.
Dawson, J. 1998. What Christians Should Know About…Reconciliation. UK: Sovereign World.
Friedman, A. Halabi, R. Sonnenschein, N. (2000) “University Courses on the Jewish-Arab
Conflict.” In Halabi, R. (Ed.) Identities in Dialogue. Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
Irani, G. and Funk, N. 2000. Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab-Islamic Perspectives. Kroc Institute Occasional Paper #19:OP:2. in Cox. B (Ed) Reconciliation Basic Seminar. The Abrahamic Edition.
Munayer, S. 2001 “Who Hates More? Who is More Evil?” Israel: Musalaha.
Munayer, S. 2001 “Stages in Reconciliation.” Israel: Musalaha.
John Dawson, president of the International Reconciliation Coalition, outlines four key steps:
1. Confession: Stating the truth; acknowledging the unjust or hurtful actions of myself or my people group toward other people.
2. Repentance: Turning from unloving to loving actions.
3. Reconciliation: Expressing and receiving forgiveness and pursuing intimate fellowship with previous enemies.
4. Restitution: Attempting to restore that which has been damaged or destroyed and seeking justice wherever we have power to act or to influence those in authority to act. (Dawson, 1998)
Biblical reconciliation
In our experience helping to reconcile Messianic Jews and Palestinian believers, this model needs to take place in the context of relationship to get to the stage of confession.
As relationships are built, people are able to proceed through these steps. This is the strength of the ‘sulha’ system—it incorporates a culturally appropriate context from which to enter into confession, forgiveness, reparations and reconciliation.
The sulha system has weaknesses as society is changing with urbanization and modernization. Sometimes resolution is subjected to the ability of the leaders or a power game of weak and strong. As can be the case in the Arab villages, the weaker family is subjected to higher penalty for offenses.
The challenge is to incorporate the elements of these models that bring reconciliation and also pursue a fair and just resolution to conflict. Both these models provide answers to those who question the connection between reconciliation and justice. While some believe that reconciliation takes place at the cost of justice, it is evident from these models that pursuing justice and restoration is a natural part of the reconciliation process.
Stages in reconciliation
At Musalaha we have observed several stages in the process of reconciliation among believers. The process is continuous—people advance through the stages and at times return to previous ones. Some enter the process and do not persist; others leave and then re-enter. These trends are similar to those noted by other organizations such as Givat Haviva (http://www.givathaviva.org.il/english/) who work in conflict resolution between Palestinians and Israelis.
Stage 1. In the first stage, people from both sides are often willing to meet, after some hesitation.
In the initial meeting people are curious and interested. They have fun, and they’re often enthusiastic to participate in an activity together. There is a sense of idealism and euphoria, expressions of “We are no different,” and “We are all one body.”
Participants also express reservations. Givat Haviva, while conducting a joint course with Palestinian and Israeli university students, noted that in the beginning stages, participants questioned the validity of the encounter: What can really be achieved by this meeting?
While Israelis found value in building personal relationships, Palestinian participants questioned the impact of personal relationships on political conflicts (Friedman, 2000). In response to this, we at Musalaha developed the Desert Encounter as a model for deepening relationships and continued participation in the process.
Stage 2. Moving to the next stage entails a revelation of their feelings on issues, the background and context of their perspectives, and becoming more open about grievances.
The fact that Palestinians and Israelis feel differently about issues now comes up to the surface. Several Israeli leaders expressed to us that many Israeli Jews feel overwhelmed at the Palestinians’ stories, their political and theological opinions,and at how strongly they express their grievances. He explained that suddenly, the power dynamic has changed and they are put on the “weak side.”
Givat Haviva notes that Israelis are surprised by the shift in power balance. Outside the encounter, in the real world, they have majority and power. In smaller environments, where they are no longer the dominant group, the dynamics are different. “The Jews have difficulty with the gap that has been revealed to them, between their self-concept… and their image as it is reflected in the way Arabs perceive them” (Ibid.).
For Palestinians, the equal footing that they experience in an encounter with Israelis is lost when they return and re-enter the political realities of their situation. This raises the question of what is gained from the meeting if there is no change on the ground.
Stage 3. The third stage usually finds the Israeli participants in a process of withdrawal. They often back out of meetings because they see it as hopeless, or the issues become too overwhelming and painful for them.
As a result, Israelis state their own accusations and grievances against the Palestinians. They also share their strongly held theological and political positions. Each side reacts by saying that the other’s withdrawal from the process was obvious and inevitable, that they will never understand and never accept one another. Each side accuses the other that they are blind to reality and to the truth of the Bible.
Rather than reaching a greater understanding of one another, this stage often confirms each sides’ positions. They find explanations and reasons for the way things are; but if they do not move beyond this stage, they reach an impasse. In this stage they feel that they will never agree and the process will lead nowhere. The parties separate into their corners, and the process loses steam.
Stage 4. Those who remain in the process realize that they are bound to live alongside one another. At this point, people understand that both sides have genuine charges and grievances against each other. They also recognize the shortcomings of their own people, that their side also has contributed to the breakdown of relationships and the violence of the conflict.
They realize that they must find a way to correct and restore the relationship between the two peoples. They are willing to take serious steps to do so. Those steps include learning one another’s history and life experiences, listening and accepting differing perspectives and perceptions.
“Reconciliation requires an ability to identify with the enemy’s view of the meaning and causes of the conflict, an acknowledgement of guilt for injustices committed by one party against the other and abandoning the desire for revenge…. Reconciliation puts both parties on an equal footing, declares that both sides are both victim and perpetrator, and enables them to agree on a common denominator and leave the bitter conflict behind, together with the reciprocal atrocities that it spawned” (Benziman).
Believers can also learn from each other about God and about Biblical truths. Making progress in reconciliation requires courage and risk. It means becoming vulnerable to “‘the enemy.” It means being honest, sensitive and willing to listen.
As participants go through this process of reconciliation, the issue of personal and ethnic identity plays a major role. It is our observation that people who move through the stages of reconciliation have developed a more secure identity, becoming more sure of who they are in their ethnicity and in the Lord.
At the same time, they are more willing to embrace others and to work at restoring relationships. They are willing to deal with the issues and to correct the damage that has been done.
Bibliography
Benziman, U. 2005. “Needed: Reconciliation.” Haaretz. October 13, 2005.
Dawson, J. 1998. What Christians Should Know About…Reconciliation. UK: Sovereign World.
Friedman, A. Halabi, R. Sonnenschein, N. (2000) “University Courses on the Jewish-Arab
Conflict.” In Halabi, R. (Ed.) Identities in Dialogue. Israel: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
Irani, G. and Funk, N. 2000. Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab-Islamic Perspectives. Kroc Institute Occasional Paper #19:OP:2. in Cox. B (Ed) Reconciliation Basic Seminar. The Abrahamic Edition.
Munayer, S. 2001 “Who Hates More? Who is More Evil?” Israel: Musalaha.
Munayer, S. 2001 “Stages in Reconciliation.” Israel: Musalaha.