Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue. Editors:
Paul Scham, Walid Salem, Benjamin Pogrund. Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek, CA, 2005, 298 pp, $23.95 paper, $59 cloth.
As the peace process in Palestine lurches along and cynicism grows
about the possibility of ever having a just, lasting and
comprehensive settlement, it is refreshing to come across Shared
Histories, which is both hard-nosed and hopeful. Subtitled "A
Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue," this book is the work of scholars
from three Jerusalem-based institutions: Paul Scham (the Hebrew
University's Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace), Walid
Salem (the Palestinian Center for the Dissemination of Democracy
and Community Development), and Benjamin Pogrund (Yakar's Center
for Social Concern).
In 2002, after three years of preparation, they convened
Palestinian and Israeli historians and others to share views on
Israeli and Palestinian history. Seven topics were chosen from
1882-1949, and a Palestinian and an Israeli each prepared a short
paper intended to present respective views of that subject, which
appear in this book.
However, there is more, as Shared Histories presents eye-opening
dialogue by the papers' authors and others on what happened in the
Holy Land from the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries. In
sometimes caustic interplay between the participants, both
professional historians and laypersons show how the process of
understanding can proceed. Unlike in negotiations, no agreement is
sought in Shared Histories, but its reasoned disagreements can
bring to a wider audience the elusiveness of peace.
This volume's premise is that intangible elements, especially the
historical narrative of the two sides, make a difference in
peace-making (prior to an agreement) and -building (after accord is
reached). While the editors - the designers and implementers of the
project on which Shared Histories is based - fully recognize and
advocate the need for compromise in the tangible issues that divide
their societies, they also believe that it is dangerous to ignore
history.
The project was first called "Shared History," but a participant
pointed out that it is more "Shared Histories," as two basic
narratives of the past exist. This does not eliminate the
possibility of a shared narrative, but that is not the editors'
assumption. They believe that the narratives must be enriched by
understanding the "other." This project developed out of a belief
that Palestinians and Israelis cannot have peace without
understanding - on a societal level - each other's "historical
narrative." By that, the editors mean how, through history, a
society understands itself and others - its coming into being,
place in the world, and relationship to enemies as well as
friends.
Conventional wisdom of Palestinian-Israeli peace-making sees
discussing history as counter-productive. That point of view may be
valid for ice-breaking negotiations, but after the ice has been
broken, continued ignorance of historical narratives, whether by
negotiators or the public, is dangerous to the success of the
process. Failure of education by both sides to create public
understanding of the issues means that both see the other in terms
of stereotypes handed down through many decades of conflict; thus,
understanding and the ability to create peace between the two
societies remain lacking.
Academic history has a major role in unearthing sources of
information and changing the narrative. Academics' debates bring
out new viewpoints and perspectives, sources for other aspects of
historical narratives, as few non-historians will spend years
unearthing and grounding themselves in innumerable secondary
sources. Israeli and Palestinian historical narratives emerge from
struggle between the two peoples, thus reflecting each side's
ambivalence about the other's national existence. When Israel and
the Palestine Liberation Organization formally recognized each
other in 1993, over a century of conflict was not eliminated. One
of the remaining problems whose importance was underestimated was
the role of the accumulated history of both sides, a fact that
highlights the significance of understanding the historical
narratives in the context of peace-making.
Not surprisingly, each side was caught up in its own narrative. For
example, in the Israeli view the 1993-5 agreements with the
Palestinians represented recognition of Israel and promised ending
violence against it. Israelis understood that their recognition of
the PLO was a fundamental shift, but didn't see that the
Palestinian narrative, encompassing such issues as Israeli
responsibility for the events of 1948 and Arab suffering,
continued.
On the contrary since most Israelis consider the Right of Return by
Palestinians a euphemism for destroying the Jewish state, they
believed that recognition of Israel's existence necessarily
involved dropping the demand. Since few Israelis understood the
importance of Return as a component of Palestinian identity and
narrative, they assumed that it could be dropped. When it came back
as part of final-status discussions in the late 1990s, Israelis
were shocked. For Palestinians, peace without recognizing their
suffering since 1948 was inconceivable, and indicated Israeli bad
faith. While some Palestinians knew that there was no possibility
of Israel accepting a blanket Right of Return, they were astonished
that Israelis from the "Peace Camp" were intransigent on any
acceptance of responsibility for 1948. They didn't comprehend that,
according to Israeli narrative, flexibility on this issue
undermined Israel's legitimacy.
The juxtaposition of solid scholarship with all-too-human debate on
issues underpinning the question of the Right of Return and other
hot topics makes reading Shared Histories especially relevant. Many
on both sides of the conflict stick to their version of history
while the globalizing forces of the 21st century economy threaten
to pass them by. Of course, a long-term way of dealing with two
narratives is to try to merge and even reconcile them. Most
non-historians - and certainly some professional historians as well
- see this as necessary and desirable. However, this project is
based on the assumption that before any attempt can be made to
merge them, the separate and in many cases contradictory narratives
must be recognized and understood by both sides. Since both
consider their legitimacy is under direct attack from the other
side - by violence and many other means - respect for the other's
narrative must be demonstrated as part of a peace process.
However, the editors stress that "respect by no means implies
agreement" though this project - like much of the work on
coexistence that they have been involved in for many years -
provides a framework in which acceptance can take place. Contact
with the other side, on both a human and an intellectual level, can
show tangible proof of acceptance. Narratives are always modified
through time; contact and acceptance can help move them in
directions that include a respected place for the "other."
Contradictions can be softened, helping to reject some of the
conventions of peace-making, especially the notion that the only
way that Israelis and Palestinians can get along is to stay apart.
At another but related level, Truth Commissions in South Africa or
in Central America exemplify the necessity of gaining comprehensive
knowledge of developments, actors and victims in conflicts, so
preparing for understanding and peace.
In the long run, Zionism and its antitheses will be overtaken by
globalization, as nationalisms are diluted and become quaintly less
relevant to daily life. Meanwhile, historical debate is important.
In this respect, the commitment of Messrs Scham, Salem and Pogrund,
and their collaborators, are noteworthy; and descriptions of a
period in the history of Palestine, developed and discussed in the
book, will help end violence. There are many events of great
interest both before and after the period covered in Shared
Histories, and the editors hope to cover further issues in a
subsequent volume, which should be something to look forward to.