Does Terrorism Leave Space for Restorative Justice? The Case of Israel-Palestine.
Terrorism poses difficult questions about the use of restorative justice to rebuild communities and relationships. In this article Dr. Uri Yanay of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem discusses obstacles and possibilities, drawing from peacemaking efforts addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Restorative justice has become a well accepted way to settle
criminal and other conflicts. Can it be used to settle the aftermath of
terror attacks? The Israeli-Palestinian arena presents some evidence of
a human urge to restore relations. But, still, terrorism is a unique
type of crime.
In criminal cases, the victim and the offender are encouraged to meet,
discuss 'their' case and try to reach an agreement to settle the
conflict. In such cases, the community is the prime beneficiary of the
process.
However, when dealing with a terrorist attack, there are three major
obstacles to such a process. First, at the heart of terrorism is the
fact that terrorists disassociate themselves from the community and
even harm it aggressively.
Terrorism is associated with severe mental and physical injuries,
death and significant loss to private and public property. Terrorists
aim at the public, at the community at large. True, terrorists are
willing to admit their offences, but at the same time they are proud of
them, showing no shame or remorse. Does restorative justice theory or
practice relate to such a scenario?
The second obstacle to the effective implementation of restorative
justice is accessibility: police and prosecution keep terrorists far
from the public. It is usually special units that lead the
investigation. After all, state security matters are involved. The
community, victims included, is kept out of the process leaving no
space for voluntary conferencing.
The third obstacles are the courts: Courts are often closed to the
public when security matters are discussed. Victims have no say and
their voices are not heard in such cases. Most, if not all court
sessions, are closed to the public. For example, in Northern Ireland
the special 'Diplock Courts' were designed to try terrorist
cases.
If people do not share the same (even virtual) community; if terrorists
are kept under tight police custody, and even the legal process is
closed to the public, it seems impossible to engage in any restorative
justice discourse, conferencing.
On the other hand, hostilities may decline if people meet and talk.
This leaves a theoretical and practical challenge to examine ways to
link terrorism with restorative justice principles and practices. It is
much more effective 'to talk to the enemy' than to fight it, and it is
probably much cheaper to do so too.
Paradoxically, but as some expected, since the creation of the
Palestinian Authority (according to the "Oslo Accord" 1993), the
Israeli-Palestinian arena has become much more violent. Surprisingly
however, parallel to this violence, there are scores of informal and
formal, registered groups of people who try to promote peace in
cross-community, Israeli Palestinian ventures. The number of the formal
groups is estimated at 1100 (See: www.ipcri.org). Despite their common
mission, that of promoting peace in the Middle East, these
organizations vary in their size, participants, operational methods,
funding capacities, funding source(s), public backing etc.
Some peace organizations share a joint leadership and some have only
Jewish or Palestinian leaders, and members of the 'other group' are
invited to join. Some operate on a one-time program(s) basis and others
maintain long-term activities and programs. Despite accessibility
obstacles, especially in tense areas or periods, these activities
contribute to improved interpersonal relations and understanding, and
reduce animosity and hate.
Some cross community, peace organizations engage Palestinian and
Israeli youth by promoting sport, music or leisure activities. Others
involve Arab and Jewish adults in literature, art or environmental
issues. Joint activities restore relations. They may indeed be very
beneficial, but not necessarily very popular in their own communities.
Why meet the 'enemy' or talk to him? Not everyone subscribes to
'normalization' in a turbulent environment.
In past years (1967 - 1987) Israel was open to all Palestinians, and so
were the Palestinian towns and villages. Ideas, culture, art, craft
(and food!) were exchanged. People from both communities got to know
each other quite well at work or at leisure, often visiting and
celebrating family events such as weddings and child births. The first
Intifada (September 1988), the creation of the Palestinian Authority
(1993), and the second Indifada (September 2000) made communities drift
apart. Walls were built and much life, blood and hope were lost,
sacrificed.
Despite all this, there are some unique and important 'bottom up'
Israeli-Palestinian mixed groups that were formed. One such a group
represents a unique community: that of the bereaved. Individuals and
families who were personally victimized, or felt so emotionally, formed
groups.
Most of these groups were initiated by individuals and families who
had paid a heavy personal toll as a result of the conflict: some had
lost a member, some had been injured and lamed and others had spent
years behind bars. All share an urge to tell their personal stories,
stories of pain, suffering and loss, and share them, freely and
directly with the other side. The Middle East crisis is far from
ending, but the need to share and acknowledge pain is there. This is,
perhaps, a first step in restoring relations.
Here are a few examples to such groups: The Arik Institute was
initiated by a religious Jew, Mr. Yitzhak Frankenthal a (then)
successful business-man whose son, Arik, was kidnapped and killed by
three Palestinians in 1994. Mr. Frankenthal decided to bring together
Palestinian and Jewish families, who had lost their loved ones in the
conflict to discuss the realities of Israeli-Palestinian life. These
meetings had a significant healing effect on the families
involved
(www.arikpeace.org).
This initiative was followed by a group of bereaved parents and
families, both Israelis and Palestinians, who suffered loss and wanted
to meet and discuss their agony and pain (www.theparentscircle.com).
The third, different example, is that of ex-combatants, Palestinians
and Israelis who, instead of fighting each other, organized to lend a
hand towards a joint fight for peace. They call themselves Combatants
for Peace (www.combatantsforpeace.org).
These and similar initiatives are not always understood locally, but
they are encouraged locally and supported by peace groups and
governments from all over the world.
Most participants of these groups are people who feel trapped in a
conflict in which everyone in victimized. There are no clear offenders
and victims, and they do not want to be viewed as either. They simply
want to engage in an open dialogue that empowers its participants and
relates to some of their personal pain, looking for a way to overcome
it.
Terrorism makes the news, but people make the community. South Africa,
Northern Ireland and Cyprus finally succeeded, with some outside
leadership and help, to convince the fighting factions to realize that
there is life beyond the conflict, and that the public will benefit if
a joint community is formed. Militants put down their arms and made
sincere efforts to stop painful past atrocities and lay the foundations
for a prosperous, future-oriented community.
Restoring relations is perhaps the first step in this direction - even
in the Middle East. The public demands it by forming peace groups and
forums. However, can such groups pursue the mission? Can
community-based peace groups open up, or lead along a political path?
If they do, justice can be done. Restorative justice therefore is not
only the means to change the climate, but also the way to end tragic
atrocities that hurt everyone. Perhaps part of the solution is in the
hands of those who paid a personal price and who wish to end the
conflict, and restore relations and justice.
Suggested links:
Prof. Uri Yanay
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
uri.yanay@huji.ac.il
“This article is based upon the speech Prof. Yanay held at the
Conference on “Standards for Victims of Terrorism” in Tilburg, The
Netherlands, in March 2008. The conference took place in the framework
of the EU co-funded project on ‘Developing standards for assistance to
victims of terrorism’, which is promoted by the European Forum for
Restorative Justice. Please consult the following website for further
information on the project: http://www.euforumrj.org/Projects/projects.terrorism.htm”
June 2008
