Maintaining conflict, stopping bloodshed: Lessons from 15 years of peace in Northern Ireland
No two conflicts are alike, and a solution that fits one conflict could never be copied successfully to anywhere else.” The same sentence, in minor variations, was said to me by countless members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly, as well as journalists, academics and political activists during my short visit to Belfast about a month ago (which resulted in a piece published in Haaretz in Hebrew today). Had it not been coming from people who disagree on pretty much everything else and who support rival political parties, one might even assume they were all simply stating the party line.
All of them have a lot of experience talking to people like myself. Over the past couple of years most of them have either hosted or have been hosted by politicians, NGOs and journalists from conflict zones around the world trying to learn something from the model that put an end to the three decades of bloodshed during “The Troubles,” and the hundreds of years of conflict that preceded that period. But while it is true that one cannot simply copy and paste the Good Friday Agreement (signed this week 15 year ago, full text in PDF here) in order to create world peace, there is nothing wrong with tapping into the world of knowledge and experience the people of Northern Ireland have gained in order to try and rethink our own troubles here.
...................................................
In between the two polarized and equally legitimate identities peace is also gradually creating a new mixed identity, neither British nor Irish, but rather Northern Irish – an identity which 21 percent of the population now define themselves by. Although there is a fairly legitimate criticism of the GFA from the socialists – that the agreement forces the identity discourse and cross-community tensions to be an integral part of Northern Ireland’s politics, thus pushing aside the more important economic and class-based struggles that the poor of both sides should be conducting together – one might hope that time and new merged identity might bring about a new kind of politics that is not centered solely around “the conflict” (even though national sentiment is, as always, especially strong in the lower classes).
Taking the three-legged temporary agreement and trying to import parts of it to Israel-Palestine is not an easy thing to do, but it is worth the try. Putting the exact political structure aside, the foundations of such an agreement would have to be full equality and civil rights for all those living in the same stretch of land and under the same regime (be it one, two or more separate regimes), an ongoing political process to discuss the core issues around a negotiating table whereon all parties to the conflict that are willing to put aside their arms are represented (including Hamas, including settler groups, including civil society, perhaps including representatives of the two diasporas, perhaps including Arab states), and the coming to terms by all parties that we may find ourselves living together for a long time, calling the same places in different names, waving different flags, speaking different languages – without being petrified to death each of the others’ will and aspirations. Wouldn’t that be an interesting (re)start to the long journey for peace?
http://972mag.com/maintaining-conflict-stopping-bloodshed-lessons-from-15-years-of-peace-in-northern-ireland/69164/
