|
|
August 20, 1999/8 Elul 5759, Vol. 51, No.46
Third-party view provides fresh outlook
MARTY LATZ
Special to Jewish News
Sometimes you can resolve seemingly intractable disputes by inviting an independent third party to analyze this situation and suggest ways to fix it.
In lawsuits, judges often play this role. In marital disputes, marriage counselors regularly take this challenge. In neighborhood disputes, community mediators sometimes help parties find creative solutions. And in international conflicts, independent third countries may offer their diplomatic services.
Why do independent parties so often succeed in mediating disputes when the parties themselves are deadlocked? One reason is that they can take a new look at a problem, often without the inherent historical and emotional baggage so often brought to the table.
I was reminded of this recently when Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano spoke about his first trip to Israel, courtesy of the American Jewish Committee's Project Interchange program. He offers some fresh perspectives.
On the trip, Giuliano says he heard from activists of every stripe. He got an earful of the "truth from the left" and the "truth from the right," he says. Yet, despite the obvious divisiveness of Israeli politics, Giuliano says he was struck that parties from both ends of the political spectrum and in-between, co-exist in relative peace. He was amazed, he says, that Israel "has the peace it has."
Such respect and order may be attributed to the strong military presence, Giuliano observes. Like many first-time visitors to Israel, he expresses surprise at the number of Israeli soldiers on the streets.
Food for thought, as we confront the frightening spate of violence in our schools and elsewhere. Increasing security measures may be the inevitable result.
Finally, Giuliano gives us his prescription for Mideast peace. Peace will more likely occur, he says, if "all those involved will realize they are not doing it for themselves, but for future residents." Practically speaking, he said, both sides should agree to maintain the status quo for 20 years.
But they should decide now what will happen then and how everyone will live together peacefully at that time.
It's an interesting prescription, and one that tries to effectively remove the current emotional and historical baggage between Israelis and Palestinians. In other words, if we're too distrustful to find peace now, perhaps we can agree to a peace that will apply to future generations who don't yet share our distrust.
It's a creative idea, but I doubt it would work. Why? The present situation is unacceptable for both sides - especially the Palestinians. In fact, it's the very unacceptable nature of the status quo that's currently pushing both sides toward compromise and peace.
What we really need now is the courage and foresight - from both sides - that former Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin, the late King Hussein of Jordan and the late Anwar Sadat of Egypt brought to the peace process. And we also need the ability to bring fresh perspectives, the kind of independent third-party look that Giuliano brings back from Israel, to the issues on the bargaining table.
That way we can hope for a quicker real peace in the Middle East.
Marty Latz is a Valley attorney and negotiations consultant. Send comments to mlatz@negot.com.
|
