Recently I organized an event, The Middle East Cafe, which aimed to bring forward dialogue between university students from the Jewish/Israeli and Palestinian/Muslim/Arab communities in Halifax, Canada.

The universities in Halifax and the city itself are relatively apolitical. While there is a small activist community, the city has a strong military presence and is not particularly diverse. Nevertheless, the one issue that seems to elicit powerful emotions, passionate rhetoric, and, well polarizing conflict is that of Israel/Palestine. Previously, events have simply consisted of lectures, debates, or protests. While these events are necessary in their own right, they often seem polarizing from the outset, essentially ‘preaching to the converted’.

I find that the issue of Israel/Palestine is one where there are a number of seemingly irreconcilable narratives, and therefore dialogue usually follows familiar, unproductive patterns. When I say ‘seemingly irreconcilable’ I mean to say that these narrative are irreconcilable only as far as they will not consider that of the ‘other’. The goal for this event was to disrupt these patterns and knock down the walls that prevent people from reaching out to one another. The goal was not to find any sort of consensus or answer, but merely start the process of talking.

After initial overtures were rejected, it was decided that the participants at this event would not be registered as members of societies but as individuals. It soon became apparent that this was integral, not only logistically but symbolically, as when people participate as part of an organization they carry that organization’s baggage with them. The goal was for people to come as individuals.

While I can go on for hours about the event itself, the lessons learned, the challenges, and the success, I will make it (relatively) succinct: about 30 people participated in the event. The first half consisted of ‘story sharing’ where people paired up with someone from a different background to share a story. The story was supposed to be something that happened to them or someone they knew, or it could have been something they had seen. Essentially, the story was supposed to elucidate some part of the reason why they had decided to come to the café. After each participant shared their story, each pair would match up with another pair and each participant would share the story of their original partner. This activity forced the participants to be active listeners, and created a space for them to actually hear the narrative of the ‘other.’

The next activity was an ‘Open Space’ Dialogue. For this, all of the participants were invited to write down a question that they wanted to explore during the dialogue. Six questions were put forward ranging from “How do our identities as Jews/Palestinian/Muslims etc. effect our analysis of the conflict in the Middle East and how should they?” to “What can we do locally to help solve this conflict” Different tables were set up, each dealing with a different questions. Each of the participants was free to sit at any table they chose, and was free to move to any other table over the course of the activity. There were no moderators at the tables, so the participants themselves were entrusted with organizing themselves in a virtually open concept.

The café was surprisingly quite successful. There did not appear to be any hostility, and the participants seemed to be genuinely interested in hearing each other’s stories and analyses.

What I learned from this event is that dialogue does work! (as long if the setting is right, and the participants are genuine)…

I believe that many people equate ‘dialogue’ with ‘debate’ and I see this as a problematic notion which, when dealing with a topic as charged as Israel/Palestine, will often lead to unproductive conflict. If people are not listening to what the other is saying, but merely looking for the most effective rebuttal, not much will come out of it.

With regards to the people who attended, I could not have asked for a better group. But I don’t think they were the exception. I have received a great deal of feedback since the event where people would explain that usually they get defensive when discussing this issue, but they felt free to listen and critically examine their own position during the Middle East Café.

I think this is indicative of the fact that there's a large pool of youth out there who want to make connections, who want to agitate for change, who want justice. We just need safe and open spaces to express ourselves and communicate with each other, removed from the dogma and the past. It’s the youth who are most willing to critically examine the world, challenge the status quo, and reach out to others. If we can create these spaces, than the future is not so bleak after all...