How to Get Peace in the Middle East: How to peacefully reduce violence by and between Islamist groups, while resolving issues between Islamic Arabs and Israeli Jews

“Impossible”, you say. And, that’s what almost everyone would say. “Who do you think you are?” Again, almost all would agree with that question.

Who thought the centuries of deadly violence between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland would ever end? It did. What about the peace made between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel in the 1970’s and 1990’s?

Weren’t all of those also “impossible”?

Then there was the decades old violent and bloody civil war in Myanmar, aka Burma, which essentially has ended, starting when the two factions, the military dictatorship and the pro-democracy forces, started following the suggestions in my book, The Peace Prescription, published in the latter part of 2009.

The latter instance of peace overcoming violence may be one of the factors that led to my being nominated for the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize. I don’t expect to win. There are dozens of nominees every year. But, I do hope that the nomination will lead to more people being aware of the steps described in that book on how to prevent violence and wars. Everywhere. And, that is only possible when ordinary citizens help make it happen. Waiting for governments, politicians and organizations such as the United Nations to resolve and prevent violence and war means waiting forever.

For example, look at the total failure of governments trying to help resolve the age-old Middle East conflict between Israel, predominantly Jewish, and surrounding Arab populations, predominantly Islamist.

Whenever there is conflict between people, whether between husbands and wives, or between families feuding, or between very large groups of people including whole nations… when there is violence by one side against the other, each side must respond for revenge, and the back and forth violence can go on forever… unless and until a different path is taken.

As stated in The Peace Prescription, the greatest respect that can be shown for our family members and neighbors killed or injured in these never-ending cycles of violence, is to find a way to stop the violence, not to keep it going. Our revenge will only be followed by their revenge, and on and on.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only leads to everyone being blind.” Or as Benjamin Franklin said, “There never was a good war or a bad peace.”

So, what would it take to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

There are people on both sides, and members of all factions involved on both sides, who would like to see an end to the destructive violence. Many of them are afraid to speak up, because doing so could be dangerous. Why? Because there are many on both sides who believe that killing everyone on the other side is the only way to go. And, that belief is often supplemented with the belief that anyone who is on their side, but isn’t in favor of ongoing violence, should be killed, too.

Many believe that it is good to die for a good cause. But these, while very dangerous to themselves and others, are a minority on both sides. The majority would prefer to LIVE for a good cause. We’re all going to die eventually, but why not have a good life first? One that is filled with love, accomplishment and enjoyment? Why not get both RESULTS AND PEACE? The only results from violence are death and destruction. People usually respond against violence and force in kind, so lasting results based on violence just don’t happen unless one side can be totally exterminated by the other, which is very unlikely and such an attempt is horrible.

So, here is what it would take, as stated The Peace Prescription, to get Middle East peace for all, along with good results for all:

Three to five Palestinians who want results with peace, talk it over among themselves and agree to be a self-appointed committee to make results with peace happen. Three to five Israelis with a similar mind set do the same thing.

I prefer three on each side. There can’t be a tie vote in either committee that way, and it will be easier to get the job done with smaller committees than with larger ones. There should be an alternate fourth member who attends the meetings on each side in case one of the three regular members is unable to continue before the job is done, or has to miss a meeting.

The committee members need to keep their work secret and private, not even sharing what they are doing with family, except with perhaps one family member that can be 100% trusted to keep the process totally private. Why? To avoid violence against the committee members.

It would be helpful, perhaps necessary, for at least one of the Israelis and one of the Palestinians to have know each other before the committees are formed. It will make it easier for the two committees to arrange to meet jointly.

Why will they meet together? To negotiate, bargain, trade and make deals. Whenever two sides have had conflict, even non-violent conflict, they need serious meetings to resolve their issues, to achieve the goal of results, that both sides agree upon and can live with, including peace.

How should each committee prepare for that first joint meeting? Each committee may need several weeks to prepare a list of results and resolution of problems that each committee favors. It will take good thinking, imagination, practicality, and judgment for each committee to come up with a thorough list of desired results and how to get there.

Once each committee has approved its completed written list, the meeting time and place can be set. Ideally the members of both committees will travel to a neutral place to hold that meeting. It can be not far away and affordable, such as Cyprus.

Here is a list of issues that the committees may wish to address, and this may not nearly be the only issues or even the most critical ones:

1. Here is my proposed list of results, goals, both sides can consider:
1. Satisfaction that each side will have political independence of their geographic areas, whatever boundaries are agreed upon, without military occupation by any outside entity not approved by the residents of that entity. A new Palestinian country would be formed.
2. True democracy with freedom of religion shall exist on both sides, in both countries.
3. Freedom for the citizens of both countries or entities to peacefully visit each other’s territories for peaceful purposes, just as tourism, business visits and other peaceful visits take place between citizens of other countries.
4. Both sides agree that it shall be illegal for any of its citizens or residents to plot or plan or carry out violence against the territory, citizens or residents of the other country, or to seriously advocate or plan the initiation of violence against anyone, anywhere. Self-defense shall be understood to be the right of both countries and their people.
5. Any people whose property, such as homes or businesses, had been seized or destroyed without provocation, during previous conflicts, could expect to receive compensation that is reasonable from the side that did the seizure or destruction.
6. It is a goal that the two countries will be able to have tourism, trade and friendly relations, with neighboring countries.
7. No residents of any territory on either side of new boundaries shall be expected to vacate voluntarily or to face forced seizure of their property and expulsion from that country.
8. All residents of both countries shall have equality of voting rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion so long as “free speech” is not a form of assault.
9. Members of every religion must be permitted access to their revered religious sites in Jerusalem, for peaceful purposes, regardless of in which country those people reside.

Regardless of what list each committee brings to the joint meeting of both committees, the goal of the meeting is that the meeting shall be adjourned upon approval of a final list mutually agreed upon by the majority vote of each committee’s members.

That final list of agreements should then be presented, by each committee, to its government or leadership authorities, both on the mainly Arab/Islamist side as well as on the mainly Israeli/Jewish side, to try to get the leadership on both sides to make the deal official.

Probably the deal should be presented to the media, the major news services, and the social media first, so that elected and other leaders on both sides will not find it easy to back away from supporting the deal and getting the results that could be wonderful.

So, you don’t see me trying to tell you that this deal-making of Middle East peace-by-committees is easy, but it’s a process that, in my opinion, could happen.

That leaves us with another multi-century problem, largely located in the Middle East, and that is the one in which two factions of the Islamic religion have been killing each other for many centuries, the Suunis and the Shiites, or to go in alphabetical order, and to be fair to both sides, the Shiites and the Suunis.

This is very reminiscent of the two factions of Christianity, the Catholics and the Protestants, who also killed each other in Northern Ireland, for centuries until President Clinton was able to act as a mediator and the two sides made peace.

In this case, no American President is likely to be in a good position to mediate, because both factions do not exactly consider the American government leaders as their friends or allies.

Once again, we have the back and forth violence from one side followed by revenge violence from the other side, with no end in site.

I have a suggestion, based on my reading of the entire Koran in order to write my book, The Peace Prescription, I was very impressed with the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. There are many quotes in my book from the Koran and from the Prophet Muhammad. The Koran says, “Commit not suicide”; no exceptions to that rule are given. And it says, “Attack no one unless they attack you first.”

It is hard to believe that if we could hear from the Prophet Muhammad today, that he would be pleased with factions of the Islamic religion killing each other, even attacking devout people as they pray in their mosques that belong to the other faction. And, what would he say about suicide bombers killing themselves and others, and attacks by people, claiming to be Islamists, on people who definitely did not attack them first?

Maybe there could be two committees formed, as suggested above, of ordinary devout Islamic Muslim people who belong to each of the two groups, who want to see peace between Shiites and Suunis.

Again, the idea is to show the greatest possible respect to victims of violence on both sides, by ending the violence so that no more Islamic Muslims kill each other because of religious differences or because of the seeking of revenge for previous killings by the other faction. Why not allow each other to live their lives in peace?

Surely the vast majority of Islamic people in the world have no interest in killing anyone who does not attack them first. Self-defense is a right respected by most people of the world, regardless of their religious beliefs, but the initiation of violence does not have any widespread respect.

We should all remember that none of us had the chance to choose who are parents would be, or to choose the religion or race of the family we were born into, or the country in which we would be born. It seems useless and ridiculous to hate anyone because of the circumstances of their birth. And, without force and killing, most people, understandably, will not change the religions with which they were raised.

The Prophet Muhammad, who originated the Islamic religion for the purpose of bringing monotheism, the true believers of which he called Muslims whether they were Jewish, Christian or Islamists, to the Arabian Peninsula which was populated almost exclusively by Arabs who were idol worshippers, worshippers of multiple gods. The Koran makes it clear that all Muslims, and all Islamic Muslims, should have the right to defend themselves against, and kill those who were trying to kill them for introducing and practicing their belief in one God, into the idolatry-practicing Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century.

Reading the Koran has led some formerly terrorist Islamists to stop being terrorists, because of the actual words in the Koran,
which they had never fully read before.

Can there be real peace in the Middle East started and created by the work of committees with the courage to make it happen? I would call it “possible” rather than “impossible”.

Thank you for your attention to this blog,
Dr. Ed Marshall, just trying to be your friendly problem solver