Women working on peace
The Jerusalem Link

Sumaya Farhat-Naser

Palestinian men and women have always sought dialogue, which was nevertheless dangerous. It was seen as betrayal and as a form of recognition of the enemy. Until 1992 it was totally forbidden for Palestinian and Israeli politicians to have contact with each other. Men were immediately called to account and punished with imprisonment. Palestinian women, however, were not believed capable of political negotiation. Due to tradition and patriarchal thinking it was not fitting for women to take up political work. Therefore we met as individuals. Informal meetings took place for some years, in hiding.

In 1988 a larger group met for the first time, six Israeli women and six Palestinian women in Jerusalem; we wanted to work on a common programme, so as to no longer only work on an individual basis with each other.
In 1989 the secular Jewish cultural centre of Belgium invited a group of Palestinian and Jewish women to a secret meeting in Brussels. We worked on the formulation of common principles and a scope for co-operation. Political guidelines were necessary so that our meeting would not be denounced as a conspiracy or betrayal. We had to show our nations that we were meeting for the good of both sides. We formulated principles such as: Recognition of national and political rights, recognition of the PLO and rejection of violence. The Gulf War of 1990/91 led to a great rift between the female peace activists in Israel and Palestine. There was a return of mistrust and dialogue subsided. However in 1992 a second meeting of women took place - again in Brussels, a meeting of female members of Parliament. This gave the occasion an official character and meant that the prohibition of mutual contact was publicly discussed and was abolished two months after this meeting.

As a direct result two women's centres were founded in 1994 with the support of the European Commission: The Palestinian "Jerusalem Centre for Women" in East Jerusalem and the Israeli "Bat Shalom" (Daughter of Peace) in West Jerusalem. Together both centres form the "Jerusalem Link".

It was on purpose that separate centres were set up in two different places: Both sides wanted to be able to work independently and in freedom, instead of bending in order to oblige the other side. We want to keep our political and cultural identity.

The Israeli society has a State with differentiating structures. It has economic power and is at the same time the occupying power. The Palestinian society however has been living in exile for over fifty years and has been living under occupation for over thirty years. They only have a few foundations for a state, which are only in the process of being established, and have hardly any resources and capital. In Palestine subjects from education to human rights, citizenship, anchoring of the parliamentary system must be developed. For the Israelis these are subjects with which they have been working for fifty years.

Our differences appear to differences concerning daily life. The Palestinian religious holidays and days of rest are Fridays and Sundays whereas the Israeli's religious holidays or days of rest are Saturdays. Our public holidays and religious holidays take place at different times and are related to different behaviour. In the Muslim month of Ramadan nothing is eaten, drunk or smoked during the day: for the most part even guests are not offered anything. If the Israeli discussion panel were unaware of these conventions, it could lead to irritation. Even the social systems are fundamentally different. The Israeli women earn on average twice as much as the Palestinian women. They have social insurance, pension funds and medical aid. The Palestinian discussion panel have nothing of the sort.

It is important for the Palestinian and Israeli women working for peace to convince people on both sides of the necessity for mutual work. This work of persuasion is easier if it takes place in one's own home before dialogue in this regard is sought with the other side. Therefore each centre has its own programme, which is aimed at the requirements of its own society. The Jerusalem Link as an umbrella carries out common programmes, which are specially designed for the political situation and train women in political work.

From the beginning our work was centred on Jerusalem, the place of our efforts and the focus of delicate political, religious and emotional questions. When the idea for a campaign for a mutual Jerusalem first came into being in autumn 1996, we really felt we were "doing the right thing". The support of the European Commission and other donors confirmed the importance thereof. Under the title "Sharing Jerusalem: Two Capitals for Two States" we organised a week of action. The aim was to make a vision come true for a short period of time: the vision of an open city, a city that serves two populations, two nations as a capital. These were not a popular stance amongst the Israeli and Palestinian society and this is still the case today. The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are of the opinion that Jerusalem belongs to them alone. The reality of the city of Jerusalem is nevertheless another. It is a city with two halves: a Jewish-Israeli half and a Muslim and Christian Palestinian half. The project was difficult for both Israelis and Palestinians to accept and was emotionally charged. It threatened to render its female organisers traitors and collaborators in the eyes of the inhabitants.

As women we had less to lose than the men, if we deviated from the general consensus. We were proud of the fact that we had dared to do something that men were not allowed to even try to do.
The Palestinian Independent authorities had to give the Palestinian women the green light; they were quick to give their consent. As they were not allowed to approach the problem of Jerusalem themselves it was thus agreed in the peace negotiations that in so long as no trust had been built up between the negotiating partners - they were actually pleased that we were carrying out our campaign. The waiting period until Jerusalem became a negotiating subject was used by the Israeli Government to expand Jerusalem with extensive settlements in East Jerusalem. Such one-sided actions disturbed the trust between both sides.

And we arrived with our project in the middle of this difficult arena. We were showered with accusations: "How could you dare to share Jerusalem! How could you dare to propose Jerusalem for two capitals!"

The extremely sensitive subject that was questioned with emotion also led to arguments and misunderstandings between us the peace women. We Palestinian and Israeli women could hardly get away from the stereotype fears of "the others", although we had been working together for more than three years. For us it was crucial to admit that there were two collections of facts and that rather two stories existed than one, for mutual respect can lay the foundations for subsequent political communication. Even for reconciliation.

The danger of spoken misunderstandings was not to be underestimated. Agreeing on the project slogan, proved to be extremely difficult. We agreed amongst ourselves purposely leaving aside the definition of what was meant by "sharing".

For a short time it worked. In English - Israelis and Palestinians make themselves understood in English - it seemed easy and clear. However as the slogan was printed and translated in Arabic and Hebrew, the Israeli and Palestinian women were showered with accusations. The Hebrew translation of sharing was understood as "living together in a city", which was also interpreted as "sleeping together in a bed" or "to live in one space". Who does this space Jerusalem belong to? As Israel holds the power, this would mean that we accept Israeli dominance. Never!

The Arabic translation was understood as a "Sandwich city". In Jerusalem two types of sandwiches are distributed: the eastern one is the Pita, round bread, which is cut at the top and filled. The Western Sandwich is made up of two separate slices of bread. They fall apart easily. The idea of a sandwich city was either accepted or rejected, depending on what sort of sandwich came to mind. The Israeli side unanimously interpreted it as the Western sandwich, with the meaning that the city Jerusalem, as it was prior to 1967, would be split again.

In spite of all the difficulties the campaign was a success. There were concerts, discussions and a demonstration in which 10.000 persons participated. Even the media presence was considerable. The campaign made the fundamental question clear amongst us: How do we cope with the asymmetry between us the female Israelis and Palestinians? How will we manage to create a partnership of equal rights? We had all regarded Jerusalem as property and we were thus convinced that the city had to be split.

Israeli and Palestinian women have a different approach to peace work. Gila Svirsky, who shortly after the campaign took over the leadership of "Bat Shalom", formulated the difference as follows: "Palestinian women demand that political questions be discussed whereas the Israeli women want to make friends. The Israeli women form dialogue groups with the Palestinian women so that they can sleep better at night, the Palestinian women so that they can prevent Israeli women from sleeping peacefully at night."

Sumaya Farhat-Naser, born in Birseit near Jerusalem, where she is teaching botany at the university - which she studied in Germany. From 1997-2001 she was the leader of the Palestinian "Jerusalem Centre for Women".

This text is the summarised version of a chapter from the book originally written in German "Rooted in the land of olive trees", which was published in 2002 in the Lenos publishing house, Basel (Switzerland). The Lenos publishing house specialises in Arabic and German literature. Unfortunately Samaya Fahrat Naser's books are not available in other languages - nor is the publishing house' website www.lenos.ch, where more information is available on the publisher and the author.

Translated from German by Heather Batchelor.

Lol@ 3         email