Learning from Irish peace accord

By Larry Schooler

Two pieces of recent international news have captured my attention. Headlines about the Middle East announce old news: "Peace Talks Break Down Between Israelis and Palestinians," "Hamas Suicide Bomber Kills Tens of Israelis," and "Arafat Bemoans Israelis' Botched Assassination Attempt." And then, precedent-shattering news emerges from Ireland: "Landmark Settlement Offers Northern Ireland Hope For Peace" and "Can-do American Patience Paid Off With Irish Pact."

I am simultaneously impressed and confused. What is taking the Israelis and the Palestinians decades to accomplish has been achieved by the Irish in less than two years. A few months ago, I asked Dennis Ross, the United States' Special Envoy to the Middle East, what gave him confidence that he might actually see the Middle East "peace process" succeed. He told me that the process had reached a point of no return, and peace was the only feasible solution to the problems of the region. Although this may be true, I am starting to question whether it's not time to take a cue from the Irish and institute a more proactive approach.

While I am not an expert on the Irish peace process, I do know that the two peace processes share significant similarities. The accord in Ireland represented the most comprehensive step ever undertaken to put an end to a religious hatred stretching back 300 years. The territorial tensions date from the 1922 division of the island into what is now the mostly Catholic Republic of Ireland and the mainly Protestant Northern Ireland. You may remember that 1922 was about the time that the British began their attempt to divide up the Middle East.

Sectarian bloodshed in Ireland has cost more than 3,200 lives since 1969, and paramilitary groups have killed 18 people since Christmas to try to disrupt the peace effort and end the talks. Sounds a lot like the activities of Hamas and Israeli extremists.

The eventual peace agreement was brokered, in part, by former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who explained his drive towards Irish peace rather simply: "I believe that [the Irish people] are entitled to the same chance in life that I want for my son. Peace, political stability and reconciliation are not too much to ask for." Political parties in Ireland were admitted to the talks only after signing a commitment to nonviolence and democracy known as the Mitchell Principles, and those who violated the principles were excluded.

What Mitchell proposed for Ireland--and what the parties have endorsed--seems as radical as the American Great Compromise once seemed: a Northern Ireland Assembly, proportional to the population, and a North-South Ministerial Council, with leaders from both Northern Ireland and the Republic Ireland to tackle issues like the environment, tourism,and transportation.

This may surprise you, but at a panel discussion on Israel's future in the next 50 years (the nation celebrates its 50th anniversary of statehood on April 30th) at Luce Hall on Thurs., Apr. 9, noted Israeli journalist Ehud Ya'ari laid out a similar plan for the Middle East. Three nations--Israel, Jordan, and a new Palestinian state made up of parceled territory within Israel--would each possess autonomy, but would form a type of tri-national commonwealth to address large issues like security, refugees, and water rights.

"Ludicrous!" the pro-Israel reader of this page yells. "Absurd!" a Palestinian yells. "Huh?" a Jordanian exclaims. We have yet to see whether the Irish plan will actually work; it is, after all, barely a week old. Rarely has so bold a plan been instituted for such a complex political problem.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. The Middle East peacemakers have yet to tackle the most difficult "final status" issues of the talk--Jerusalem, a Palestinian state, etc. Perhaps such a tri-national council holds the key to breaking the impasse and to tackling these issues. Whatever the final proposal, the Middle East parties should take a cue from the Irish, and should come up with a plan now that requires all parties to lay down their arms and to make the tough decisions together, in a state of peace, with compromise.

Larry Schooler is a sophomore in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...