Although history should never be used to ascertain territorial rights nor can it be used to compare and weigh wrongs, it is useful as a tool to understand the present. With that preamble, I note that in the second half of the 19th century shortly after the Ottoman Tanzimat and the abolition of the status of dhimmis, the Zionist movement initiated Jewish return to the Holy Land. I am not suggesting that the Zionist movement was initiated because of the Tanzimat but I use this juxtaposition to relate events that are important to the understanding of the israeli-palestinian conflict. Also coincidental with these events, Carnegie was bankrolling colonial initiatives in Costa Rica and Nicaragua to accaparate land and slaves and European countries were embarking in large colonial initiatives. Thus for the Moslem inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, Zionism was just another colonial initiative and it was happening at a time when their superior social status had been abolished. For the Zionists though, the return to "the land of Israel" was not viewed as a colonial entreprise as Jewish settlers were doing the entire manual labour not slaves or native inhabitants. As history is in the eye of the beholder, the above is given for the sole purpose of allowing the reader to understand the context within which the author thinks.

If we fast-forward a century and a quarter later we cannot differentiate between victim victimizer. If a reader can identify a victimizer, then he has forsaken the possibility of dialogue as a fundamental end product of any historical re-examination with the purpose of conflict resolution cannot be the justification of one side. Indeed some Arab writers present the victimization of Jews as originating with the Nazi Holocaust, while most Israeli writers would discuss their victimization at the hands of Arabs during the various uprisings in Palestine and the victimization of Jews from Arab lands. As the comfort zone within which both parties can negotiate a durable peace is at present non-existent, then we must conclude that deep societal changes must occur before leaders have room for negotiation. Thus the necessity to affect change at the community level as opposed to the Euro-centric individualistic conflict resolution processes.

A consensus appears to be developing in that conflict resolution processes that have sprung in the middle-east centuries ago are relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Indeed these rituals have been used throughout history in most Mediterranean countries to resolve long-standing vendettas. One example is Professor Irani paper on Arab-Islamic rituals of reconciliation "Sulh". The rituals follow three steps: Acknowledgement, Settlement and Public Reconciliation and involve the participation of a mediator: a man of integrity. The process as described is heavy on rituals as befits the orient and takes place within a communal framework. The rituals stress the link between the psychological and political dimensions of reconciliation. The main shortcoming in the "Sulh" process, is the requirement for the identification of a victim and a victimizer; but what should one do when the vendetta has gone for so long that there are no more victimizer but only victims? Can one reasonably ask parties to take stock of their losses and the one with the fewer losses compensates the one that suffered most?

Another consideration in conflict resolution is the oriental perspective on time. This perspective allows Orientals to discuss the crusades as if they occurred 100 days ago and not 1000 years and the interference of the British (and French) governments in thwarting Mohamed Ali expansion into the Levant occurred last month and not 200 years ago. In other word we have to demonstrate patience of a magnitude unbeknownst in the west. We must not be discouraged if the fruit of our efforts cannot be gathered by our generation but hopefully it will be by our grandchildren. I feel that I am an optimist in expounding this thought and compare peace workers of today a little like the great cathedral builders who knew that only their grandchildren would see the completed gothic cathedrals.

So what can a group of committed people do to pursue reconciliation?

I would suggest that in our generation we pursue the first step in the "Sulh" process and attempt to achieve a wide consensus on mutual and reciprocal acknowledgement. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I translate acknowledgement into legitimacy. The ultimate goal of this phase would be that the parties recognize explicitly the legitimacy of their opponent claim and commit themselves to reconstruction and rebuilding the image of the opponent is necessary. Legitimacy does not need to be symmetrical in all aspects but must be unequivocal. Some Jewish writers expound at length on the fact that there was no Palestinian nation-state before 1948 to deligitimize national aspiration of Palestinians. Similarly, Arab writers expound that there is no archeological proof that Herod and Solomon temples were built on Temple mount leaving the observer to ask where did Jesus Christ preach? Presently few if any leaders openly embrace the other side legitimacy and most political scientists usually emphasize the greater importance of autocratic leaders in Arab countries. Yet, as described above most oriental peace making occurs within a community and not between individual. Indeed, one of the lapses in the Oslo process has been the neglect in establishing grass roots reconciliation avenues and the lack of appropriate changes in school curricula. The necessity of incorporating cultural elements into conflict resolution have been very well described by Chaim Aharoni and it is these elements that must be addressed and dealt with before any progress can occur.

We must first marshal on and deliberately and purposefully engage in changing misrepresentations, perceptions, and stereotypes as well as gain knowledge about each other's. Espousing a perverted image of the opponent even in the heat of debate negates any effort at acknowledging legitimacy. Although, strife is not created by the lack of knowledge of the opponent; ignorance is certainly the source of strife and conflict. It is only when a majority of influential citizens acknowledge the legitimacy of their opponents and abandon the myth that they are responsible for all the sufferings. This change in attitude is a lengthy process but is necessary, as leaders tend to follow rather than lead in such situations. Indeed, some historians claim that the first Merovingien king of the Francs (Clovis) converted to Christianity at the end of the 5th century in part because most of the population was inclined to adhere to monotheism.

At present most groups involved in peace processes are intellectuals, writers or poets. We must seed new groups comprising educators, journalists and religious leaders. Educators are those who will prepare the next generation and if they teach that the opponent is not guilty of all the sufferings endured by them, then the next generation will not confuse violence and power. Similarly, religious leaders can have a beneficial or a detrimental impact on societal evolution. One has just to consider the monumental and beneficial impact of Pope john XXIII and Vatican II on the evolution of Catholicism in the second half of the 20th century.

In the fullness of time, (with G-d help in our lifetime) these grass roots actions will facilitate the emergence of a mediator. This mediator: man of integrity will not be an uninvolved third party, a western style judge exhibiting Cartesian impartiality, but rather would be an oriental broker who has a stake in establishing peace. This mediator would be a powerful leader and would stake his authority, reputation and credibility in pursuing a settlement. Obviously no such person would rise to the challenge unless the groundwork has been done and the acknowledgment phase has been well engaged. The mediator would also have enough power and authority that he could "punish" if one side or the other torpedo the negotiations. Obviously, the pre-requisite for the emergence of this mediator is the establishment of communal truce and an end to violence. A mediator would establish his authority on the parties by achieving this truce before embarking on any mediation and thus would demonstrate to the communities that his intervention has already brought about concrete benefits. Eventually, reconstruction and replacement of what has been damaged will be undertaken but the most difficult damage to repair is the image of the adversary.

In the final stage of "Sulh" a public reconciliation would occur. This has not happened in the case of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord and a handshake on the lawn of the far distant White House is not considered a public reconciliation in the orient. This is why at best the peace between Egypt and Israel can only be considered as a cold peace. While this cold peace was possible between sovereign states, it will not be possible between Israelis and Palestinians and a closer to home ritual will have to be conceived.

In conclusion, the road to peace, in this small semi arid piece of real estate but oh so emotionally charged, is a long road. But as Mao said the longest journey starts with the first step. This length of the road is not a source of despair to me, but rather an affirmation of life. We must not loose sight that the first step in this long journey is the recognition of each other legitimacy in many fora including schools, universities and religious institutions and our contribution is to establish and seed as many of these fora as humanly possible.