“The Governor General of Australia Mike Jeffery might have had the controversy over the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize recipient in mind when he observed to the Melbourne Institute last week that unless debate in Australia becomes more civilized, a drift towards a destructive polarization of views is inevitable.” Professor Stuart Rees

Professor Stuart Rees is director of the Sydney Peace Foundation. The Australian newspaper refused to publish this piece on the Ashrawi debate.

 

The Governor General of Australia Mike Jeffery might have had the controversy over the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize recipient in mind when he observed to the Melbourne Institute recently that unless debate in Australia becomes more civilized, a drift towards a destructive polarization of views is inevitable.

If anything is to be learned from the controversy surrounding Dr. Ashrawi, polarized ways of thinking should be identified, beginning with the views of those whose identity is tied up with leadership of a specific religious or ethnically based group.

The leader of such a group is in a difficult position. Even the slightest deviation in commitment to a cause could be perceived as betraying followers, but questions need to be asked. Does loyalty to a cause prevent the adoption of roles other than those of victim or accuser? When is it possible for extreme opponents to comprehend one another let alone work together?

Another disempowering way of thinking can be observed among politicians, newspaper columnists and letter writers whose stock in trade is point scoring via the use of derisory adjectives. I have been referred to as an anti-semitic misogynist from the feral left, actress Judy Davis � despite her conservative background – is dismissed as a lefty activist and Dr. Ashrawi – despite her dignified address in the State Parliament of NSW – was described by someone who was not there has having used �weasel words�.

At regular intervals a gentleman from Bondi writes the same letter to The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald in which he claims that I play a race card and am only interested in �the peace of the grave�. Argument by insult demeans humanity and intellect.

Reliance on stereotypes about enemies or about peace is also unproductive. In peace negotiations a first step involves unmasking stereotypes so that a realistic and dignified way of communicating can proceed. No matter how many times Hanan Ashrawi rejected violence and condemned suicide bombers her critics said she had not done so or that her condemnation had been insufficient. Once people are locked into their good versus bad perspectives, the prospect of a so called bad person being not as bad as you thought threatens the comfort of a familiar world view.

The labelling of the Peace Prize as being concerned with the achievement of peace rather than with contributions to peace with justice is another illustration of arguments persisting despite evidence and statements to the contrary.

Hanan Ashrawi, in common with previous recipients of the Prize, was recognized for her decades of work for peace with justice within her own community: for civil liberties, for human rights, in particular the rights of women and for contributions to democratic governance. The case for rewarding decades of efforts to promote civil liberties and civility must be heard. Without those efforts, an eventual peace treaty would not materialize and would not hold.

Finally there is that way of thinking which seems reluctant to find that crucial capacity for tolerance, for touches of magnanimity and even forgiveness. It is as though the debate in Australia should be conducted along the same lines as violence in the Middle East. One side must win, the other must not only lose but must be taught a lesson from which they may never recover.

The horrific numbers of dead and injured on both sides of this conflict are testimony to that dead-end way of thinking. Yet without the qualities of humanness – of compassion and generosity – including a willingness to occasionally leap into the mind of the other, personal relations are almost impossible to conduct and a civil society cannot be built.

In common with business organisations and peace coalitions, Palestinian and Jewish communities are not monolithic. Many Jewish groups have expressed shame at a debate conducted with such vehemence. Certain leaders � Stephen Rothman of the Jewish Board of Deputies and Vic Aladeff the Editor of Jewish News – have been constructive in their efforts to avoid acrimony and to realize the potential for rapprochement and reconciliation. My colleagues within the Peace Foundation are happy to do the same.

The business of conducting an argument or writing a newspaper column with a view to winning or humiliating can be replaced by communication which promotes dialogue and contributes to understanding. Following the visionary examples of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, we might even make friends with enemies.