Lessons from the Northern Ireland Case to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Lessons from the Northern Ireland Case to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Danny Gal

Driving from the Belfast international airport to the city was a very ordinary experience in a typical grey day. City centers look the same. But it was the accent of the Irish people that felt like something new and exciting is going to happen. I knew very little about the Northern Ireland story till I came here. I knew that the IRA are the "bad guys" and that there are issues around independence there. I saw a few movies with Daniel Day Lewis, and I heard about the Good Friday Agreement, but all of that didn't prepare me to the exciting story I was about to hear.

The group I was traveling with was of Israelis and Palestinians that were in a Peace Building Program. I happened to be a part of the facilitation team. But the main facilitators for this trip were two locals: Suzan and Alistair. They were also our teachers for the basic understanding of the Northern Irish (N.I.) story, mainly in the last 50 years, a period they call "The Troubles".

This is a very complicated country with many sides, stories, parties, enemies, bombs, friendships and betrayals. I had no chance to grasp the whole story and bring it here. But, as a novice, my simple understanding is that there are two main sides: The Protestants and the Catholics. The Protestants are usually pro British. This means that they are supporting N.I. to be part of the United Kingdom. That is why they are often called Unionists or Loyalist. On the other side: the Catholics wish to unite with the south which is the republic of Ireland. This is why they are often called Republicans or Nationalists.

The "troubles" started as the sides could not find a way to settle the opposing interests. The republicans felt they must fight to make to British "occupation" leave and let them unite with the republic of Ireland. The Unionists on the other side felt they must fight in order to stay united with the kingdom of Great Britain. The British felt that they must protect the law and prevent both sides from taking the law to their hands. This mess was a fertile ground for the rise of the paramilitary organizations of both sides. The most known one for people outside N.I. is the IRA which was a Catholic Republican, but there were many other armed groups on both sides, less known but much more cruel.

So here we were, a group of Israelis and Palestinians which is in its own journey to find some sense, listening to this complicated story. At the beginning it felt like this is really a good escape and zoom-out from our own troubles. But it didn't take long until people started to draw parallels from the N.I. case to the Israel-Palestine one.

When we took the political tour in the streets of Belfast, the first stop was at the wall. It was one of walls they call "the peace walls". It was amazing to see that in a city that is supposed to be under peace. The graffiti on the wall was very powerful and colorful. This time we stopped near a wall on the catholic side. There was a lot of support on this side to the Palestinian cause and there were many slogans like "free Palestine" or "end the Israeli occupation". Our group that until this moment was in a good mood immediately divided. All of the Palestinians went to be photographed with the wall in their background whereas the Israelis stood a little embarrassed on the other side. It was a first sign of the tension in this group, but not the last one.

When we drove to the other side of the wall there was the opposite picture. The protestant side of the wall was more pro Israeli. One of the graffiti even said: "Kill all the Muslims" which created a very uneasy feeling among the Palestinians. Our host, Alistair, which is a protestant-unionist felt very bad about this graffiti on "his" side. He made a phone call to some people he knows in the city to have them erase this immediately. He explained that this is not necessarily the way most of the Protestants think, but the impression was already made.

Later we saw many more memorial sites of both sides that were scattered throughout the city. The memorials always "celebrate" the blood, show pictures of the victims and of the warriors / terrorists (depends who you were asking). Although there is a "peace agreement" since 1998 it feels like the wounds are still very fresh and there is a motivation on both sides to keep it that way. This made me think that probably this is a human need that cannot be changed: the suffering and the pain cannot be erased. The history cannot be wiped away in order to make peace. On the contrary – it plays an important role in allowing the sides to voice their story freely. But, there is a lack of will at the moment, on both sides to acknowledge the fact that the other side has also suffered. And this is the missing bit. This issue of acknowledging the pain and the suffering of the other side was also a central issue in our group. Each side is so busy with its own trauma and lacks the mental space to see and feel the trauma of the other.

While we were starting our second day of this trip the news about the murder of a family in Itamar settlement in the west bank were streaming. This has given rise to the tension in the group again. That morning's program was about the personal story of two Irish ex-combatants from negating sides: Jerry the Nationalist and Alistair the Unionist. The question they tried to address through their life story was: Can enemies be friends? Their stories were amazing. Both of them killed other people and were arrested. They found each other thanks to a group of ex-prisoners that was formed to reach more understanding between the communities. Their body language to each other was of both love and hate. They appreciated each other and at the same time teased each other constantly. It felt like they can burst in a fight in any moment, but they didn't. It was a very interesting parallel process in the room that day.

Highlights from Jerry's story:

• The lies in the press have pushed me to join the paramilitary forces much more than the violence of the police. I joined when I was 16 years old.
• I knew that joining the armed group will lead to my death or to prison, and I didn't care. I just wanted to kill as many people as I could before I was to be killed.
• I thought that if I'll be able to kill many people in one occasion it will change the political situation. The thought of killing civilians, children and women did not stop me.


• 
  
  I was imprisoned twice but that didn't change me. It was only after the peace agreement was made that I started my transformation.
• I joined an ex-fighters community group and started to sit with the enemy. This is where I met Alistair.
• It wasn't easy to sit with the enemy. I felt like I was betraying myself and my friends who died.
• At a certain point in this process I started to feel the pain of the other side and the price of my violence felt very heavy on me. This feeling has frightened me because I was suggesting that maybe I was wrong and my struggle was in vain?
• I keep thinking that I wasn't wrong in my political views but I regret the violence.


• My main transformation was not in re-humanizing my enemy after so many years of seeing them as not human. It was mainly in re-humanizing myself!

Highlights from Alistair's story:

• I was not exposed to hatred at home. I have learned this from the environment, politicians, leaders, media
• In all of my years in prison I never met the politicians who spread the hatred. I only met the fighters.
• When I was 14 my best friend was killed. This is when I started to seek revenge.
• At the age of 14 I joined the UVF, a paramilitary Unionist-Loyalist Protestant group.
• At the age of 17 I was imprisoned until I was 30.
• I never had any contacts with people from the other side. Everyone that was different than me was the enemy.
• I always thought that god was at our side. It helped me justify my violence. It was only in prison that I started to realize that god doesn't support any killings.
• In prison I gradually started to see the pain of our enemies. When Bobby Sands (A known Catholic Leader) died from at the hunger strike I identified with him although he was the enemy. I admired his courage to go with his belief until he killed himself and I doubted if I would have had the same courage. He was so human in my eyes.
• That was a turning point for me – I promised to be loyal to myself as a human being.
• I started to see how useless this whole strategy of violence was. I understood that my role had to change.
• It was much easier to be violent than to work for peace. It was much easier to meet the enemy in the battlefield than to meet myself in the closet.
• If the young Alistair would meet the experienced Alistair he would probably shoot him dead.
• I am still experiencing violent thoughts in me and it is a continuous self work. Remarks:

remarks:

* Till today, after the peace agreement, and while being friends, they still experience fear in visiting the other side.

* Some people in their own communities see them as traitors and oppose their friendship

* Both of them do not completely agree with the political peace agreement but they believe it is a useful tool to stop violence and open a space for building a better future.

It was fascinating to listen to the personal stories, but this has reminded us that everyone in this room had their own stories of fear, trauma and discrimination. The polite atmosphere to each other was very fragile. There were conversations taken in small groups of each side that were not shared with the whole group. That had led to more tension. It took only one word by one of the Israeli participants to blow the meeting. The Israeli called a friend of one of the Palestinian participants a Terrorist. The Palestinians were offended and reacted by leaving the room. It felt so similar to the Belfast story. It took 20 minutes and they were back. Now there was much more truth and less politeness in the room. Although unpleasant – almost everybody appreciated it.

We spoke about the need to be able to sit in one room and have one conversation although we not agree with each other and hold different truths at the same time. We realized that it might be a key to any progress in our process – both in this group and in our region.

A few people were crying in the room. An Israeli moved his seat and placed it beside a Palestinian colleague as a good will gesture. Another one brought some tissue to his friend. We were starting to notice the little gestures that made a difference. It allowed the atmosphere to change and invited more personal stories of trauma and suffering, but this time with a true and compassionate listening.

One of the important findings of all sides was that they fear each other. The Palestinians could not understand why Israelis would be afraid of them and for the Israelis it was hard to acknowledge the fear of the Palestinians. The realization was that the amount of fear is not necessarily connected to the facts and figures. When people fear – they fear – and that is what matters when it comes to their behavior. We realized how useless it was to compare the statistics of sufferings: fear is fear and it has no metrics.

The feeling at the end of this trip was very complex. It felt more harmonious than in the beginning but we all knew that there was a very thin line between the harmony and another possible explosion.

It was felt that a few participants were ready to open up and move a bit beyond their previous "downloaded" opinions. But it was also frustrating to see others (from both sides) stick to their old habits of blaming the other. I had to accept the fact that this is a long process with very little short term fruits.

There was a feeling in the room that we are too "small" to change the overall strategic picture. But it was so clear that in order to create a significant change you can start with a small gesture the makes a difference.

It was interesting to see the important contribution of the feminine voice from both sides. Some women's ability to be connected to their feelings and to speak straight from their heart had a very important and needed impact on the group.

It was evident again that when you convene the two sides together it is crucial to build a safe space and to facilitate it in a way that is both challenging but also keeping the respect and dignity of everyone as much as possible.

The idea of learning from another "case" like Northern Ireland proved itself to be very useful and valid. It was a great opportunity to see a real picture of another conflict, without any attempts to add optimistic or pessimistic colors to it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to travel with the group, witness the personal and group learning processes and absorb so much.