An audience participation Play which gets Audience and actors involved in formulating a “real” Peace Treaty
The Theatre Group Newsboy [who deal with human rights theatre] have twice
had rehearsed readings of a scene from Peace Treaty as part
of their Theatre nights. They are an excellent group to work with.
STAGE SETTINGS.
It may be a good idea
to have photographs all around the stage area - at different heights - that
show scenes of Israeli and Palestinian suffering-showing why a Peace Deal is
necessary. It might even be possible to have bright flashes of light and sounds
of gunfire for four minutes before the Play starts.
Looking for the truth
Some “helpful?!” tips from the actors.
[Two male actors and two female actors who “chat” to the audience]
Samuel. In a few moments you will be presented with
some “Facts”. Of course, in everyday
life, even facts, of course, can lie when taken out of context. Or, when
someone only deals with one set of facts and ignores another. These facts are
later on changed by different groups who have different agendas in mind. Those
arguing do not need to lie, though lying is used occasionally by the Press, a
lot can be achieved by careful sifting, by exaggeration, and by the copious use
of inflammatory adjectives.
Cindy. For this debate, discussion? argument!?
melding of minds! to work, however, the “Facts”
that you encounter must be taken as absolutely True! We must
consider the impact of these Facts
and not merely argue about whether the events happened or not. Most of the time
in discussions is spent by people arguing about what happened, and when, and to
whom, and how badly. We will limit our discussion to looking at how different
Groups disagree about what action is appropriate in a certain context. That
will simplify our job and hopefully will allow some proper analysis of the
subjects of Truth and Conflict. And by “Conflict”, I mean everything from War
to Domestic Disputes.
Linda. We are going to be involved in a genuine
attempt to learn about Truth and Conflict. This may sound a bit pretentious,
but we take decisions each day, and our leaders do too, based on the imagined
idea that we do have some knowledge of Truth and Conflict.
Samuel. Well, perhaps we should enter this Debate
by first laying out our own predilections, beliefs, and opinions-even if only
to ourselves. I, for instance, am what would be called “Pro-Palestinian”. By
that I mean that I believe that Palestinians are often discriminated against in
Israel
Linda. And it is my opinion that the correctness,
or otherwise, of a moral situation is not always apparent to everyone. Slavery
was once “acceptable” to many intelligent concerned people in the Western
World. To me, animals should have the right not to be harmed. That is
self evident. But most people in the world do not see this important matter the
way I see it.
Cindy. Well I also think that Groups discussing
Human Rights concerns should avoid using God to prove or disprove matters.
Different Groups use their own God to prove their own theories of how things
should be. And many people, like me, don’t believe that there is any prove at
all that any God exists.
Samuel. So, tell me, what criteria can we use? Do
we rely on Historical and Cultural truths? On who won battles in the past? Do
we trust in the Laws that are already in place in a Country’s Constitution-even
if they are bigoted and cruel Laws? Do we trust in Laws developed by the United
Nations and by other International Human Rights Legal Agencies?
Cindy. Or do we trust in a Philosopher’s favourite
theory-say Contract, Rights Based, or Utilitarianist?
Linda. I think that Peace Deals are very dependant
on the people who are representing the opposing sides in the talks. Talks often
need the right people on both sides, as well as both sides needing to see the
strategic situation as ripe for a Treaty.
Samuel. The “Facts”
you will see are not open to dispute. The mechanisms for debate though are
entirely open for you - the audience - to decide which ones to choose. Even if
you have never heard the name of any theories -you will be working with your
own theories – some broadly correct, others, perhaps, based on prejudice and
misunderstanding.
Linda. Whatever we do, we must try not to
denigrate anyone who takes an opposing view to us. We must always respect
another’s opinions-even if we argue against them. In a debate we can either
argue for “our” Position, or we can try to find out by investigation what is
“Fair” or what is, “the truth”. We must not get carried away with emotions-even
though when we argue for something, it is often something that is very
important to us. We must try to put ourselves into “another’s shoes”.
Samuel. The “Facts”
we will now present to you are a three week snapshot of events in a small area
of Israel
THE FACTS.
Cast. One male actor. One
female actor.
[As the actors first enter the Performance
space, they give out A4 laminated cards to the audience. Each will have seven
phrases written on it i.e. “no violence”, “According to the Law”,
“Empowerment”, “Equality for all”, “Justice”, “Fairness” “No Opposition”.]
[female actor, friendly voice]
We are going to touch on the subject of
Peace, and how we can try to find it. You all have cards with seven different
phrases on it. Each describes a possible prime requirement for Peace. Take a
minute and read them all. [after 30 seconds] Think carefully about which one is
the most important. Now, I want every one of you to shout out as loud as you
can –on the count of three-the phrase you have mentally picked as the most
important. You all need to shout out loud for this to work. So, lungs ready,
One Two Three! [she gestures at the audience to shout out loud]
As you have just found out, the
search for peace can bring Chaos. We did this to show you that Chaos resulted
even though you all picked well, as best as you could. Yet, you all disagreed.
You all have a different idea of what is needed to find peace.
[Two Poems: At this point in the play the actors read one poem by an
Israeli Poet and then one poem by a Palestinian poet. This is to get the
audience seeing each side as real people with real concerns that should be able
to reach beyond having to cope with War.]
[Both actors now stand next to
each other in front of the audience. They are high up - on chairs for example.]
[read by male actor in a flat disinterested voice] Here are the facts.
This really happened.
May 5th. Israel Israel
[read by female actor in a flat disinterested voice] Here are the
facts. This really happened.
May 12th. A report is issued which shows that 20% of young
people in the refugee camp are infested with intestinal worms, from having
sewage contaminate food and water supplies. 50% of those children do not have
access to a proper education. Unemployment rates are three times the national
average.
[read by male actor in the voice of an excitable children’s T.V.
presenter]
May 20th A suicide bomber kills himself and ten people - two
of whom are soldiers - on a bus. All the victims are Jewish. Three victims are
young children. Israeli bulldozers destroy the homes of people who live in the
next block to the bomber.
[read by female actor in the voice of an excitable children’s T.V.
presenter]
May 25th. A Peace Conference is cancelled because of claim
and counter claim of alleged violent activities by both sides in the dispute.
[Two tables with radio announcers at them. Both face the audience. One
has a card saying Israeli
Government spokesperson. The other has a card saying, Palestinian Underground Radio.]
[Israeli Government spokesperson:
male actor, his voice filled with anger:]
May 5th. Israel
[Palestinian Underground Radio:
Female actor, her voice filled with hurt and indignation]
May 5th Today, two
children were murdered by Israeli soldiers. Their families were at a birthday
party when a mortar shell landed in the middle of the room. Two freedom
fighters for Palestine
The Israeli army have arrested
over one hundred innocent people. They are being held without charge. Torture is
the least they can expect.
[Palestinian Underground Radio:
Female actor, her voice filled with hurt and indignation.]
May 12th. Today, an Independent Report has been issued
which shows that 20% of young people in the Refugee camp are infested with intestinal
worms because sewage contaminates our water. 50% of our children do not have
access to a proper education. Unemployment rates here are three times the
national average. Our people do not even have the most basic Rights. The Right
to Work. The Right to have access to clean water. The Right not to be subjected
to arbitrary arrest….
[Israel Government spokesperson:
male actor, his voice filled with indignation]
May 12th. A fortune is
being wasted on Palestinian housing. The money is being redirected to fund
those who support terror. Why should we pay to support those who would deny our
Right to exist? We believe that the Israeli Government fully fulfils its duty
of care to those who live within its borders. Palestinian groups will try and
twist statistics to suit their distorted view of things. Those who walk the
road of disharmony will not hesitate to tell lies. There are three separate
Scientific Reports that prove that conditions are perfectly adequate in these
Camps.
[Palestinian Radio: Female actor,
her voice shaking with emotion.]
May 20th. A martyr has
achieved revenge for the killings of the two innocent children. Chaos struck
the centre of Tel Aviv when a young man gave his life for the freedom of his
people. Prayers are asked for the Martyr and his family. Perhaps now the
Israeli people will understand that we will not be treated like animals.
However, as we go on air we hear reports that Israeli bulldozers are tearing
down the homes of anyone who lived near to the Martyred hero.
[Israel Government spokesperson:
his voice filled with hurt and anger.]
May 20th Today, a
madman travelled from his safe refuge in the nearby refugee camp and
slaughtered ten innocent people travelling on a bus. This cowardly terrorist
was disguised as a woman. Two brave soldiers were amongst the victims. And
again Israeli children have died, victims of the blood lust of these
terrorists. Three innocent young children.
We seek the removal and
imprisonment of the Palestinian officials who do nothing to stop these terrorists
who they know and who they shelter. They are as guilty as the bombers.
[Palestinian Underground Radio:
Female actor, her voice filled with hurt and indignation.]
May 25th. The Israelis
have banned all our people from attending the Peace Conference today.
Again we see that they will do anything to oppose the search for Peace.
[Israel
May 25th The
Palestinians have refused to cooperate with the safety measures that we
instituted to protect those travelling to the Peace Conference today.
Again we see that they will do anything to oppose the search for Peace.
[The last lines are spoken by the Palestinian and Israeli announcers who
read out loud at the same time while turning to face each other and shaking
fists at each other]
[Palestinian Underground Radio:
Female actor, her voice filled with anger.]
We look to the wider world to
support us in our fight against Zionism.
[Israel
We look to the wider world to
support us in our fight against Terrorism.
Cindy. The Truth is hard to find. However, the point is not
that we should give up looking for it. On the contrary, we must look harder.
And we must ensure that we too do not sift through the Truth, and then rewrite
it to suit our own agenda! When we debate with someone, usually we try and
demonstrate the strengths of our argument and the weakness of the other
person’s argument. What we don’t do, is try to work towards finding out by
discussion what is true. Most debates have little to do with fact finding. They
are usually to do with each side doing a Public Relations job for their
viewpoint, while at the same time trying to weaken every one of the other
side’s arguments. This selfish type of arguing doesn’t work on the small scale
domestic scale, still less on the International Scale. We must learn how to
listen as well as to talk! And we must learn at least a little about the
History of the Conflict.
THE
HISTORY (given out on paper to the audience as well as possibly being shown on a
T.V. screen-the way most people find out the “Truth” about World events).
This has proved very hard to write, as every
event is seen differently by every Group that has an interest in the Middle East . What does become easily apparent is the
great power of individual leaders to argue for or against Peace.
From 1920 till 1948 the British were in
control of Palestine France Palestine
In 1947, the United Nations voted to approve
the partition of Palestine Arab State Jerusalem
In 1948 the new State of Israel was
proclaimed in Tel Aviv. Shortly after, the armies of Egypt ,
Jordan , Iraq , Syria ,
and Lebanon Palestine village of Deir Yassin Israel Egypt Jordan gained the West Bank (of the River
Jordan) and East Jerusalem .
The Palestinian Refugees fled to Egypt, the
Lebanon, and Jordan. In Egypt
and the Lebanon Jordan
On 5th June 1967, Israeli forces
attacked the forces of Egypt ,
Jordan , and Syria Syria
Apparently out of the blue, the World
learned in August 1993 that the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Yasser
Arafat had agreed a Peace Treaty with Israel Norway Israel Independent Palestinian State ,
the West Bank, and East Jerusalem . The Israeli
Prime Minister who signed the agreement – Yitzhak Rabin - was assassinated on 4th
November 1995 by a Nationalist Jew who thought Rabin was a traitor. When Binyamin Netanyahu was elected Prime
Minister in 1996, he did not want anything to do with the Peace agreed to in
the “Oslo Accords”.
From the time of Rabin’s assassination until
today, the dominant Israeli strategy seems (to many Human Rights Groups) to
have been to place enough Nationalist Jewish Settlers in Palestine Israel , as well as in the “Occupied
Territories ” of the Gaza Strip, West
Bank, and East Jerusalem ) who always come
second in any competition (for resources, water, employment, or land) with
Jews.
Today there are 7.1 million displaced
Palestinians around the world. Many are still in the Refugee camps they went
into Decades ago in the Lebanon ,
Syria , and Jordan as well as in the “Occupied Territories
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
In
1967, Resolution 242 was approved by
the Security Council of the United Nations. It demanded the following:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict.
In 1974, the General Assembly of the United
Nations issued Resolution 3236 (XXIX)., which included the following: 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right
of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have
been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.
The
Negotiations.
Cindy. We –all of us- are now going to try to work towards a Peace
Treaty and we need ten members from this lovely friendly audience to volunteer
to take on some important tasks-none of which are painful or unduly
embarrassing. We need people to debate for and against a Peace Treaty, and we
have some lovely helpful actors - none of whom have halitosis - who will help
you prepare your arguments.
Samuel. Every member of the audience will be given out copies of
the reference material that we have so far discussed or have seen the actors playing
out on the Stage i.e. the bits dealing with History and with Negotiations. They
will have twenty minutes to read all the reference material and rehearse what
they want to say before negotiations start. Plenty of time for such an
obviously intelligent audience.
Cindy. This last Scene will involve some of you, the Audience, in a
Peace Conference- which has been hastily arranged under pressure from the
U.S.A. - with a few of you designated to speak in support of certain positions
i.e. Eight members of the Audience: two Israeli Peace Activists broadly in
favour of a “fair” Peace settlement; and two other Israeli Zionists against any deal that compromises
the security of Israel; two Palestinians broadly in favour of a “fair” Peace
settlement, and two other Palestinians against any deal that denies the “Right
of Return” for Refugees. This does seem a bit unfair-having to argue a position
you may not agree with. However, if you were brought up under certain
conditions, that may have been the position that life “forced” upon you.
Samuel.
In addition, two members of the Cast also speak: one, an Israeli Government
Spokesperson arguing against any deal that would compromise the security of Israel ; and one Palestinian Spokesperson arguing
for equal access in Israel
for Palestinians to Jobs, Housing, and Education, and arguing for a powerful Palestinian State
Linda. And please we also need two other members of the Audience to
volunteer to be Independent negotiators and they will try hard to help the
negotiators reach a compromise Peace Treaty. If a Treaty is to be agreed, it
will almost certainly involve a compromise by both sides. Each speaker has
two minutes maximum for their initial speech.
Cindy. There will also be one of the actors acting as a
Chairperson-to stop people who just can’t stop talking-it happens. And to
encourage those who are quite shy to talk. The Chairperson will make notes to
compile the Peace Treaty which the negotiators are working on.
Samuel. I am of the opinion that you need to have some knowledge of
the situation before you can take a proper part in a debate. In this debate, at
the least you need to know what terms like “Zionist” mean. But the discussion
cannot be allowed to turn into a recital of “relevant” books that you have read
about the Conflict in question.
Linda. What the Peace Treaty applies to is left undefined; it is
left to the Negotiators to decide.
Samuel. The skills that are used to sort conflicts between Trade
Unions and Management or between two partners who aren’t talking are also being
used by Independent - if such a thing exists - negotiators to help in Peace
Talks between Nations in conflict with each other.
Linda. There is no “right” decision. Perhaps you will betray your
own friend’s and family’s Culture by agreeing a Deal that is unfair. Perhaps
Peace is impossible. Is it? That is for
you to decide.
Cindy. When the two minute speeches have ended and Peace
negotiations have started, the negotiators have thirty minutes to discuss every
option. No longer! As soon as thirty minutes has passed, a vote will be taken
of the audience and negotiators. No more speeches or debating is allowed.
Samuel. Then, lastly, you
must decide for yourselves - by a vote of the audience-does the Peace Treaty
that has been negotiated carry the support of the audience-and that includes
those “negotiators” who, unfortunately, have to vote as their new “persona”
demands.
Linda. I suppose that the vote seems a bit of cheat-as in real
life, the two main negotiators - the
Israeli and the Palestinian negotiator - would be the ones deciding on whether
to accept the Peace Treaty or not.
However, for the purposes of this
performance, you, the audience, will feel more involved if you have to make the
big decision-is the Peace Treaty acceptable?
Samuel. The question that the main part of the audience must answer
is simple enough, “Do you agree that this proposed Peace Treaty is acceptable?” It
may even be that there are no terms to be proposed and the meeting has broken
up in acrimony. That’s life!
After the vote.
Cindy. The above scenario we have worked on involved Conflict in
the Middle East . The same type of Play /
Discussion could also be performed with a different Global Conflict situation
e.g. the United Nations refusal to send significant numbers of troops to Rwanda
Linda. It may even be useful for those involved in negotiating
their “sides” position in a conflict situation to act out one of the parts in
the Peace Conference you have taken part in-and so learn in a relatively
detached way about how to reconcile differences and about how to deal with
“entrenched positions” (in themselves as well as in others).
Also, in those training
exercises, both sides should be broken up e.g. so you would have a Palestinian
and an Israeli working together against a Palestinian and an Israeli as they
debate back and forth a possible Peace Treaty in some non-Middle Eastern area
of the World. Problem solving workshops were used by both sides of negotiators
prior to the Arab-Israeli agreement of 1993.
Samuel. Discussions - in a marriage as well as inter-national -
often end up in a backward spiral were both sides say, “I only did that in
response to what you did the day before / year before”. Both parties to this
unproductive discussion often end up justifying their actions by citing an
incident that occurred many years before. Both parties to a Peace Treaty must
agree on-and keep to-a time frame within which they keep their discussions.
e.g. in the Middle East , agreeing not to
mention anything before 1947.
Linda. And I believe that choosing the right questions is
important. Very often people quite rightly start by looking at basic “Rights”
in a situation and ask e.g. “Should people in a refugee camp have clean water
and sufficient food?” And then, instead of answering the question asked, answer
another question e.g. they reply, “Rebel forces will take all the food.”
Cindy. In any Peace Treaty or Human Rights discussion it is
important to start by asking as simple and basic as possible questions. e.g.
Start by dealing with basic Rights and then answer the first question, i.e. the
one that was asked, correctly. Only then, go on to another question.
Samuel. In the above Peace Making process that we took part in – I
hope we all learnt something. In such a Peace Treaty there are four stages. The
first stage, is looking at what facts we know. Looking for the truth. People
spend an enormous amount of time disagreeing about what is true.
Cindy. Secondly, there is the stage of negotiation. This involves
the negotiators having to gain knowledge of “the other side” as being people
who have concerns that need to be listened to. Indeed, that they are just as
human, and humane, as they are.
Samuel. But you could also argue e.g. some armed Groups in conflict
areas may just be out to make money and power for their own Group and are not
working for any sense of greater good.
Linda. The third stage, is the Peace Deal, the contract based on
give and take and, hopefully, understanding. This Deal is based on the facts of
the case real or imagined); on the moral case of the protagonists, and on the
power of the protagonists. Power can mean many things, from the number of
weapons and soldiers one side has, to the allies that a protagonist has.
Samuel. The fourth stage is only hinted at in what we have so far
looked at. And this is how do the protagonists keep up a dialogue in the future
and keep having respect for the “other side’s” position-even though they will
each do unfair things to the other and will each have justifiable complaints.
Linda, Samuel, Cindy. [To the
audience] To all of you, thanks for taking part. Peace, its
something worth working at!
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Getting the Audience involved in a realistic way is
a vital part of this Play. More and more, audience participation is being seen
(by Theatre Academics) as the “way forward” for theatre in the first few
Decades of the twenty first century.
So, here is one possible idea
which could help get the audience involved.
I would like to get the
audience as involved as possible and for them to have a real say in the
discussions. Start with a twenty minute pre-negotiation period where the actors
and those members of the audience who are willing to speak, together examine
the evidence (contained in the Audience Reference Notes) and work out possible
lines of argument, done in as “chatty” a way as possible. This should be done
in discreet groups but in front of the rest of the audience. The Chair-person
talks to the two Independent negotiators. The Palestinian Actors talk to those
taking some kind of pro-Palestinian position. The “Israeli” actor talks to the
pro-Israeli negotiators. The audience negotiators should be encouraged to say
at least a couple of sentences; otherwise their position/side will not be
represented. If they don’t talk, it would be like a Courtroom Trial where the
Prosecution take their part but the Defence say nothing.
The Independent Negotiators
might be encouraged to mention that the Peace Treaty has to be “workable”. Too
“one sided” a Treaty will be a Treaty that might collapse quite quickly. It has
been argued (rightly or wrongly) that the Arusha Accords which were signed in
1993 were so biased towards the very competent Tutsi and moderate-Hutu
negotiators that the Hutu extremists would never accept the Accords. And that
this, as well as some other factors, led to the Genocide of 1994.
The
audience could be told that the Negotiations between the Palestinians and
Israelis are back on because they can be held in a neutral City, Glasgow
Another
method of performing, THE FACTS: As the audience first enter the Performance
space, they could walk through a pile of A4 laminated cards. Each would have a
word or phrase written on it e.g. “no violence”, “According to the Law”,
“Empowerment”, “Equality for all”, “Justice”, “Fair” “No opposition”…
The
audience and actors should sit down and sift through the Cards in order to pick
one that they believe is the most important requirement for a Peace Treaty, and
remember that word or phrase. Then, at the request of the Chairperson, all the
audience and actors shout out the phrase or word they have remembered from the
cards. The result will be Chaos (a discordant roar). This is to show that Chaos
resulted even though they all picked well, as best as they could. Yet, they all
disagree. Negotiation is a long and tricky business. This part may also allow
actors to pick those confident and well spoken enough to take part in the
pre-Negotiation talk session which takes place in the middle of the audience.
After
as many shows as possible, there should be a post show discussion.
ADVERTISING. Regarding pamphlets for pre-show
advertising: I think the advertising for the event has to mention that e.g. -
"ten members of our audience will volunteer to take place in a Peace
Treaty. This Peace Treaty will be discussed and debated with the help of short
plays being shown about the situation in the Middle East
and with helpful resource materials/Notes. Eventually the volunteers will come
to a Deal / a Contract which the audience will then vote on-the Vote being
whether or not to accept the Peace Treaty. This innovative Play will hopefully
give members of the audience an insight into the psychology and power politics
involved in a Peace Treaty - and how hard it is to make one that endures. The
audience will be just as important to the Show as the text of the Play or the
work of the actors. This type of Play has never been done before and is a step
forward in integrating the Theatre with Human Rights Debate.
The long notes may be best given out as
“Homework” when someone buys a ticket for the show. This could be part of the
pull for the show. It would show great respect for the audience member-trusting
them to do their bit by researching the history of the conflict. It could be
that this new type of Theatre well get many admirers (hopefully so). It would make
the audience member feel much more a part of the play. Indeed, instead of
trying to force/cajole people to take part in audience participation, this
method could make people try hard to make sure they are part of the discussions
AUDIENCE
REFERENCE MATERIALS (TWENTY MINUTES TO READ IT ALL AND PREPARE NEGOTIATIORS
SPEECH-IF SPEAKING)
THE
HISTORY. This has proved
very hard to write, as every event is seen differently by every Group that has
an interest in the Middle East . What does
become easily apparent is the great power of individual leaders to argue for or
against Peace.
From 1920 till 1948 the British were in
control of Palestine France Palestine
In 1947, the United Nations voted to approve
the partition of Palestine Arab State Jerusalem
In 1948 the new State of Israel was
proclaimed in Tel Aviv. Shortly after, the armies of Egypt ,
Jordan , Iraq , Syria ,
and Lebanon Palestine village of Deir Yassin Israel Egypt Jordan gained the West Bank (of the River
Jordan) and East Jerusalem .
The Refugees fled to Egypt , the Lebanon ,
and Jordan Egypt and the Lebanon Jordan
On 5th June 1967, Israeli forces
attacked the forces of Egypt ,
Jordan , and Syria Syria
Apparently out of the blue, the World
learned in August 1993 that the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Yasser
Arafat had agreed a Peace Treaty with Israel Norway Israel Independent Palestinian State ,
the West Bank, and East Jerusalem . The Israeli
Prime Minister who signed the agreement – Yitzhak Rabin - was assassinated on 4th
November 1995 by a Nationalist Jew who thought Rabin was a traitor. When Binyamin Netanyahu was elected Prime
Minister in 1996, he did not want anything to do with the Peace agreed to in
the “Oslo Accords”.
From the time of Rabin’s assassination until
today, the dominant Israeli strategy seems (to many Human Rights Groups) to
have been to place enough Nationalist Jewish Settlers in Palestine Israel , as well as in the “Occupied
Territories ” of the Gaza Strip, West
Bank, and East Jerusalem ) who always come
second in any competition (for resources, water, employment, or land) with
Jews.
Today there are 7.1 million displaced
Palestinians around the world. Many are still in the Refugee camps they went
into Decades ago in the Lebanon ,
Syria , and Jordan as well as in the “Occupied Territories
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
In
1967, Resolution 242 was approved by
the Security Council of the United Nations. It demanded the following:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict.
In 1974, the General Assembly of the United
Nations issued Resolution 3236 (XXIX)., which included the following: 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right
of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have
been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return
The
Negotiations.
Cindy. We are now going to try to work towards a Peace Treaty and
we need ten members from this lovely friendly audience to volunteer to take on
some important tasks-none of which are painful or unduly embarrassing. We need
people to debate for and against a Peace Treaty, and we have some lovely
helpful actors who will help you prepare your arguments.
Samuel. Every member of the audience will be given out copies of
the reference material that we have so far discussed or have seen the actors
playing out on the Stage i.e the bits dealing with History and with
Negotiations. They will have twenty minutes to read all the reference material
and rehearse what they want to say before negotiations start. Plenty of time
for such an obviously intelligent audience.
Cindy. This last Scene will involve some of the Audience in a Peace
Conference- which has been hastily arranged under pressure from the U.S.A. -
with some of you designated to speak in support of certain positions i.e. Eight
members of the Audience: two Israeli Peace Activists broadly in favour of a
“fair” Peace settlement; and two other Israeli
Zionists against any deal that compromises the security of Israel; two
Palestinians broadly in favour of a “fair” Peace settlement, and two other
Palestinians against any deal that denies the “Right of Return” for Refugees.
This does seem a bit unfair-having to argue a position you may not agree with.
However, if you were brought up under certain conditions, that may have been
the position that life “forced” upon you.
Samuel.
In addition, two members of the Cast also speak: one, an Israeli Government
Spokesperson arguing against any deal that would compromise the security of Israel ; and one Palestinian Spokesperson arguing
for equal access in Israel
for Palestinians to Jobs, Housing, and Education, and arguing for a powerful Palestinian State
Linda. And we also need two other members of the Audience to
volunteer to be Independent negotiators and they will try hard to help the
negotiators reach a compromise Peace Treaty. If a Treaty is to be agreed, it
will almost certainly involve a compromise by both sides. Each speaker has
two minutes maximum for their initial speech.
Cindy. There will also be one of the actors acting as a
Chairperson-to stop people who just can’t stop talking-it happens, and to
encourage those-who are quite shy-to talk. The Chairperson will make notes to
compile the Peace Treaty which the negotiators are working on.
Samuel. I am of the opinion that you need to have some knowledge of
the situation before you can take a proper part in a debate. In this debate, at
the least you need to know what terms like “Zionist” mean. But the discussion
cannot be allowed to turn into a recital of “relevant” books that you have read
about the Conflict in question.
Linda. What the Peace Treaty applies to is left undefined; it is
left to the Negotiators to decide.
Samuel. The skills that are used to sort conflicts between Trade
Unions and Management or between two partners who aren’t talking are also being
used by Independent - if such a thing exists - negotiators to help in Peace
Talks between Nations in conflict with each other.
Linda. There is no “right” decision. Perhaps you will betray your
own friend’s and family’s Culture by agreeing a Deal that is unfair. Perhaps
Peace is impossible. Is it? That is for
you to decide.
Cindy. When the two minute speeches have ended and Peace
negotiations have started, the negotiators have thirty minutes to discuss every
option. No longer! As soon as thirty minutes has passed, a vote will be taken
of the audience and negotiators. No more speeches or debating is allowed.
Samuel. Then, lastly, you
must decide for yourselves - by a vote of the audience-does the Peace Treaty
that has been negotiated carry the support of the audience-and that includes
those “negotiators” who, unfortunately, have to vote as their new “persona”
demands.
Linda. I suppose that the vote seems a bit of cheat-as in real
life, the two main negotiators - the
Israeli and the Palestinian negotiator - would be the ones deciding on whether
to accept the Peace Treaty or not. However, for the purposes of this
performance, you, the audience, will feel more involved if you have to make the
big decision-is the Peace Treaty acceptable?
Samuel. The question that
the main part of the audience must answer is simple enough, “Do
you agree that this proposed Peace Treaty is acceptable?” It may even
be that there are no terms to be proposed and the meeting has broken up in
acrimony. That’s life!
Limits of the Negotiation.
Negotiations may include anything the negotiators deem worth
of inclusion. However, I enclose some possible areas that might be deemed as
subjects that could be part of a Peace Deal:
Acceptance by all parties that Jerusalem is an inseparable part of Israel
Agreement of all Palestinian
Groups to renounce terror as a tool against the Israeli State
The Palestinian Authority must
hand over anyone suspected of crimes against Israel ,
to Israel for Israel
There must be rigorous (and
verifiable) searches (by the Palestinian Authority) for illegal arms dumps and
for arms smuggling;
All Arab countries to accept the
right of Israel to exist.
An Independent State of Palestine
No more settlements built on Arab land;
All illegal settlements on Arab land pulled down and the land returned
to the original owners;
A right for all Palestinian Refugees (from 1948 onwards) to return to
their Homes;
The International Community to substantially Fund a Palestinian State
Freedom for all Political Prisoners;
An International body set up to calculate Compensation due to anyone wrongly
detained or mistreated in Israeli Jails over the last ten years.
An
Independent International Committee set up to investigate alleged Human Rights
abuses (by Palestinians or by Israel
An
International Peace Force to guard the entrances and exits from a new Palestinian State
A
body set up with International representatives; also representatives of
Palestinian interests and Israeli interests, to keep up a friendly dialogue
over the next ten years.
The
“Occupied Territories ”
of the West Bank and Gaza be made part of Israel
COMPROMISE. Compromise is the name of the game. And parties to an
agreement must compromise on things they thought unalterable. However, having
said that, there are two things which seem almost impossible to see a
compromise in:
1. The Palestinians would
probably never allow the loss of East Jerusalem
to a Jewish State. They might (?) accept a Jerusalem
2. It is impossible that Israelis
Jews would accept the possibility that Israel Occupied Territories became part of Israel
and the Palestinians given voting rights, then it would not be long before
there were more non-Jews than Jews in Israel
Any Jew in the world is welcome
to come to Israel
To make a Peace Deal work:
You need to do quite a few things: like, built up trust between the two sets of
communities; allow as many people as possible from the two communities to have
real power in dealing with each other in the future; have women involved;
secure real and long lasting employment for all fit Adults; have proper
Education opportunities for all children and young adults, and try to solve the
“underlying problems” at the same time e.g. poverty, sectarianism etc.
These are the phrases that can be
given out to the audience (100 slips each with all of the phrases on them). At
the Newsboy event the rehearsed reading of a scene got a great response but the
reading out by the audience of what they thought as essential for Peace worked
amazingly well. Audience members were shocked to see chaos as everyone picked
something different from everyone else and although they all wanted the best
things they all disagreed resulting in a cacophony.
No Violence
According to the Law
Empowerment
Equality for all
Justice
Fairness
No Opposition
The four “Truths”
[This is something I wrote for myself - at first - to answer the
question, “Why do so many people who have lived through war, hold alternate
views of what happened?” It is perhaps something for those involved in the
Peace Treaty play to consider.]
In every conflict there are at
least four “Truths”
The first two are the truths as
seen by all of the combatants and their supporters. There may of course be more
than two groups involved in the conflict (in that case five or six truths). In
addition, groups may change sides or direction throughout the conflict.
Thirdly, there are the
“Independent” observers who may be more or less Independent. They are not from
the conflict zone but may be under the protection or territory of one group and
may only see events from their side. They may have their own prejudices or
racism inside them when they go to the war zone. Even if they try hard to be
impartial they may be unable to travel to see what is happening in other parts
of the war zone. Journalists are occasionally sent out with troops of one side
and even without threats from the troops (which does happen) may feel the need
to give only that side’s view of the situation. Of course they quite literally
do only see one side of the conflict.
Fourthly, of course, there is
also the truth that really happened. That truth can be unbelievably hard to
find out. Historians years later with documentary evidence, witnesses, and
grave sites to examine, still argue between themselves about battles within
living memory.
So after conflicts, people from
the losing side will often have very strong views that their “truth” was the
real truth and was accurate. They may be right. Sometimes however groups have
access to the personal testimonies of friends and remember isolated incidents
of violence against their group, and they argue very strongly that their view
of truth is the correct view: and they can be mostly wrong. They may not
be lying or trying to be biased. They may only have ever seen one truth. Their
version of truth may relate to one particular time and one tiny geographical
area. And after conflicts, interested groups try to give out their own view of the
truth e.g. via the internet, meetings, and books.
Sometimes in countries where the
Government has control over all the media, people may have only the
Government’s view of the truth to look at or consider.
To consider one case. In Rwanda in 1994, there
are claims that there were large scale atrocities committed by the mainly Tutsi
army (the Rwandan Patriotic Front). Those listening to the local Radio (Tutsi
and Hutu) at that time would have heard a view that was (most people now
believe) extremely biased and exaggerated against the RPF. So there are
survivors of what happened in 1994 that saw bad things being done by the RPF to
their friends and who listened diligently to the biased Radio reports and
believed that similar things happened to everyone on their side. After the
physical war the losing side has fought an information war trying to convince
Rwandans and the world that their truth was right. They have support groups and
witness testimonies and internet articles.
So how do Rwandans know who to trust?
My opinion is that they must look to independent human rights bodies like Pen
International. And to the writings of the U.N. commander on the ground who
lived through the conflict (Brigadier-General Dallaire). These are as unbiased
as you can get. No human rights group or truly independent international
witness has denied the genocide of moderate Hutus and Tutsis by Hutus in 1994.
But still many Rwandans do. They ask for Justice and believe strongly they are
right.
In many countries aggrieved
groups’ desire for their view of Justice leads to further conflict. For they
are speaking the “truth”. Well, sort of.
Another thing that can make
someone biased towards the losing side-when their side have been mainly
responsible for war crimes-is that the person whose view we are considering was
pressured into seeing things the way others around them saw it. People can be
so influenced by figures around them so that they remember things differently
from what really happened. Also, if people all around you all have a certain
perspective you would be very strong willed and brave to hold an alternative
view. Pressure to conform can be so strong in isolated communities after wars
that it results in bullying and death threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment