Background: As part of the Future of Track-Two Diplomacy Undergraduate Fellows Seminar, in spring 2011 Sara Moufarrij interviewed Dr. Ziad Asali, founding president of the American Task Force on Palestine, about the intersections of U.S. foreign policy, religion, and track-two diplomacy.
Can first speak about your background and how these experiences have brought you to your current work?
I was born in Jerusalem and raised there. We first lived in West Jerusalem but then had to move to East Jerusalem. I went to university and medical school in Beirut, and then went back to Jerusalem, then came to U.S. and practiced medicine here for 25 years. I then decided to spend time on the Palestinian issue. This organization has been around since 2003. It is a conflict ending measure: it is good for the U.S. and Palestine to work on it. We have connections with Congress and Palestinians and Israelis. We talk to the embassies and their governments. We have no control over money nor over votes in the U.S. We must be contributing players, so we figured out that we need to establish credibility (say the same thing to everyone), which is hard because you immediately create opponents (define what you stand for and advocate for it, people will oppose it). The fact that you are part of establishment will create enemies for you: it exposes you to criticism. We have a mantra: “no more and no less.” No more: accepted what happened in 1948 and its consequences; no less: can’t expect to accept less than these borders. Having a stand that is clear and defending it everywhere is very hard, especially since we don’t have much power: but the limited power we have acquired is because of credibility.
Can you talk about what the term reconciliation means to you?
Reconciliation is difficult to achieve because it depends on establishing and agreeing upon a common narrative. It is not possible to agree on a narrative in this case. If we start to get into that, you accentuate the negative parts of reaching an agreement. It is more important to not dwell on past. Agreeing on a past is necessary, but that is the next phase. Right now, we are preoccupied with establishing a two-state solution, and not agreeing on a common past. What happened to Palestinians since ’48 needs to be discussed but not right now because it will hamper a peace treaty. We also feel that a two-state solution is only solution. This is our goal: the others are merely options and won’t help end the conflict. Rather, they can propagate the conflict, making it greater than just an Israeli-Palestinian affair. It will no longer be national. We need to resolve it between Palestinians and Israelis and then larger issues will be arranged.
We developed the notion that the future is more important than the past. This sits in with idea of historical narrative. I also want to discuss this notion of victimization. Victimhood is the state of mind undergone by both parties. When you are a victim, you feel that you cannot accommodate the pain of another! This is the mindset that can always be used to justify anything: it attaches you to violence, there are no compromises. It is very important for every tribe to take care of victimhood. Stop emphasizing it: everyone is a victim, not only your side. This must be dealt with. Thus, our goal is policy and presenting information to all parties: we try to interpret things: why does each party do what they do. We talk to every body.
What do you see as the role of the churches/mosques/religious institutions in promoting reconciliation?
There is a group of council of religious leaders, established by the Norwegian Mr. Trond. It includes Palestinian and Israeli leaders from the Christian, Muslim and Jewish branches. We are in touch with them and try to help them communicate the message of a two-state solution back home. How could it hurt? They are coming in June. They are the only religious group that we communicate informally with. We are not part of them.
Have you tried coordinating with secular NGOs in the area?
Of course. The majority are secular. We collaborate very closely with American Charity for Palestine; they are interested in promoting education in Palestine. We have done a few projects in Palestine with NGOS like CHF, International Crisis Group.
Have you or your organization provided a forum or mediated between parties in conflict?
We are more involved with policy than anything else. We organize panels, conferences. We work with Brookings, Carnegie and the like. Our work is purely policy. We talk to AIPAC, to J-Street, and we are goal-oriented, driven by an objective, not necessarily in an ethnic way. So, anyone who is interested in a two-state solution is a potential interlocutor for us. AIPAC has spoken clearly about a two-state solution. It is important to work within the system, don’t try to redefine the system. Bring credibility and ideas to the table. We are not in touch with Hamas as they are considered a terrorist organization by the U.S.
What specific role is there for civil society and religious actors when it comes to diplomacy and peace-building?
Push for reconciliation. It is the polarizing part that is destructive. If they push for understanding, that would be great. We learned that the policy about the ME is clear: two-state solution. What then stands between all of us? Politics. It stands in the way of policy. That is influenced by public opinion, and religious opinion is part of this.
Do you consider the execution of diplomacy to be a strictly secular affair? How so?
The political affair and politics are a comprehensive approach. So within that context, religion is A factor in this formula. It cannot be a determining element but it cannot be dismissed.
What is track-two diplomacy? What are some recommendations you would offer to better engage civil society in track-two diplomacy? Which kind(s) of approach(es) would you suggest in order to particularly target the youth to become more involved in this important process of building bridges between people?
Track-two is a diplomatic venue that does not involve officials. It is a diplomatic venue. It is important to recognize that we have our broad principles, we talk to negotiators to give them information or analysis that are used in turn by negotiators. It is thus important to work within the system. This notion of working with governments has been around for 200 to 300. You can try to redefine policy, but you must do it from within the system (even the Civil Rights Movement gained ground within the system). To impact decision-making, you have to be within the official policy establishment. That’s the biggest lesson we have learned. It is more powerful to be within the system. All young people should be part of the establishment (this does not strictly mean government, but also media and other similar avenues).
