The World Health Organization's response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic among women is rooted in tangible results and efficacy. Dr. Claudia Garcia-Moreno's 2005 presentation on the subject makes the WHO mindset clear: "Women are not victims."
Without even realizing it, Garcia-Moreno's strategy speaks on a broader level to the role of victimization in impairing conflict resolution. The World Health Organization realizes the disempowered must understand that their lack of power is not static or intrinsic. So by rejecting victimization in favor of empowerment, effective solutions can prevail.
But in reference to the endemic infection of Israeli-Palestinian violence, victimization is about as popular as pita and falafel. The center of the ideological positions of both the Israelis and the Palestinians is based on a plug for sympathy, as each tries to guard against "destruction" by the other side. A quick look at each story makes this commonality clear.
The Israelis see themselves surrounded by the Arab World, a force of huge geographical, political and military proportions. They see themselves as a small bastion of Jews in a world of Christians and Muslims. Perhaps most importantly though, Israelis perceive themselves as a small group under constant threat, acting in defense not merely of Israel's livelihood, but in fact of its very existence.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, see themselves as a small group of people oppressed by colonialism. Thrown into geopolitical limbo by the 1948 Israeli War of Independence (or as the Palestinians call it, the catastrophe, al-nakba), the Palestinian minority (in its own view) faces systematic oppression from the Israelis and the West, and often apathy from the Arab nations.
Both sides are entitled to feel victimized. And, by the way, so are the HIV-positive women. As members of the non-institutionally-dominant sex in our society, they do face oppression from the dominant male hierarchy in global politics. These women have every right to feel like victims. And both the Israelis and Palestinians have the right to claim to be an oppressed party too. Be it through terrorism, curfews, or missile strikes, all parties have been wronged.
And, because in the Middle-East victimization walks hand-in-hand with entitlement, the "You did this to me, so now I deserve something back" mentality takes hold because it ultimately garners sympathy, the end goal of victimization. And even objectively, who is to say that sympathy is not due the Israelis and Palestinians?
But Garcia-Moreno has pointed out a huge contradiction in approach and mindset in the conflict. Simply stated: feeling victimized and pragmatic solutions do not always walk hand-in-hand. Seeing oneself, and portraying oneself as a victim, while perhaps in every sense justifiable, is ultimately futile in solving the actual here-and-now problem. But the Israelis and the Palestinians don't see this, and instead we get continued conflict. Here's why:
When the Israelis see themselves as the victims of Palestinian terror, it becomes all too easy for them to downplay human rights violations committed by their government. Ask an Israeli government spokesperson about the destruction of Palestinian homes or the killing of activist Rachel Corrie, and they will ultimately gloss over the human rights details of both cases. Now, this oversight stems not from any true apathy on the part of the Israeli government, nor any sadistic desire to annihilate Palestinians. Rather, it is the unfortunate (and I would argue dangerous) externality of a mindset of victimization. Once someone is a victim, it is all too easy for an act of aggression to turn into an act of self-defense. When Israel, during the Second Intifada, destroyed the house of a suicide bomber's family, the story was, in the words of Velma Kelly from the musical "Chicago": "He had it coming."
The Palestinian Authority suffers from a similar mindset. Even when given the entirety of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority will absolutely not follow through on its obligation to dismantle terrorist groups because it is, in its words, too "weak." The Palestinian Authority is expecting to be given statehood while actively seeking out statehood with the enthusiasm of a 3-year-old told to go kiss Aunt Myrtle. And with an "oppressor" who prides itself on overcoming the worst genocide in human history to settle the malaria-infested waters of Palestine, sympathy is in short supply.
In short: victimization as a strategy for change is simply ineffective. And this is exacerbated when both players in a conflict try to play the same part in the story. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides are invoking the story of the giant Goliath's fight against the smaller, meeker David. The problem is this: both sides claim to be David. So who gets to play that part? Ultimately, neither.
This in turn raises a second problem. Not only do both sides claim victimization, they refuse to recognize the claims of victimization of the other side. This creates an "arms race of ideology" in which both sides are locked in a stalemate for sympathy.
Garcia-Moreno, and thousands of physicians like her, has found a viable solution where results are critical. And we in the arena of conflict negotiation must follow in their footsteps. Empathize with victimization. Give credit where it is due. But don't let it mask the truth. Don't let it shade your visions. And don't let it get in the way of a sustainable human rights-based peace in the Middle East.
Scott Weiner is a sophomore majoring in international relations.
