Exodus Model of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Essay Example

Enmity has existed between Jewish and Arab cultures since ancient times.  Indeed, the Jews, who claim to be God’s “chosen people”, have long held acrimonious relations with Muslims over exclusive religious and land claims. Muslims, who have long found themselves at odds with Israel, ironically acknowledge many of Judaism’s prophets, but have also found themselves in various wars to preserve their religious and cultural beliefs. While innumerable methods have been tried to usher in peace between the two groups, religious dialogue has often timesbeen seen as an obstacle, rather than the pathway to ease collective tensions.  However, the Exodus Model of Peace and Conflict resolution posits that endogenous Jewish religious principles might provide the key needed to reconcile relations between two of the largest religions in the world. While this model is innovative in both thought and application, it ignores practical, political realities on the ground that would make it nearly impossible to implement.

In order to understand the Exodus Model of Peace and Conflict, one must first understand the meaning behind Exodus 5:23 in the Bible: “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it (King James Version, Exodus 23:5).” This verse in Exodus (essentially) describes a relationship of antagonism between two individuals in the beginning of the verse.Towards the end of the verse, it describes how one may ameliorate the antagonistic relationship:  through helping the enemy by sharing his burden.  There are two caveats needed to understand this verse.  First, the verse is usually considered to be part of Mosiac Law in which Israelites are strictly separated from other people or “foreigners” not of the same covenant of god.  Second, this verse could be interpreted with a dual meaning: that is, the verse could be interpreted as pertaining to individuals, such as an individual enemy in Judiasm, or foreign groups of individuals that do not believe in Judaism.

Marc Gopin provides an interesting analysis of the possibilities behind using the sprit Exodus 5:22 as a means to facilitate peace between Jews and Muslims.  In particular, Gopin suggests that the verse in Exodus serves as an example of “cognitive dissonance”: whereas previously Jews would not treat their enemies with kindness, by explicitly changing their behavior and injecting kindness, they may open a new door of reconciliation (Gopin 78).  Gopin goes further to suggest that the explicit psychological component in the verse may be used as a mechanism for peace reconciliation that also fulfills the spirit of the law- a key element for approval in Judaism (Gopin 78). Lastly, Gopin posits that this model “humanizes” an “objective” enemy through connecting with an individual at one of the most authentic human emotions- gratitude (Gopin 79).

There are certain advantages to the Exodus Model of Peace and Conflict.  Foremost, the theory offers a solution that is already based in an established, accepted religious tradition so that religious adherents may accept it without fear of being labeled unorthodox. This is often times a stumbling block for proposed peace initiatives: if the idea for peace comes outside of the established religious tradition, it is usually difficult to garner large-scale support.

While Gopin should be rewarded for his innovative thinking within the religious tradition, he would likely lose points for the application to the real world, particularly in the complex world of geopolitics and nation states.  Indeed, while the problems between Jews and Arabs are often times conceptualized as “religious” in nature, such analysis is largely built upon ancient animus that has taken the form of cultural and political separatism in modern times.  In the current (intractable) situation between the Jews and the Arabs, the constraints of politics and in particular that of a political state, plays a key role in maintaining the antagonism between the two religions.
Let’s conduct a thought experiment to test how Gopin’s theory deals with the current political realities.  While there are many intractable issues in the current relationship between Israel( a proxy for Jews) and Palestine ( a proxy for Muslims), one of the main irritants is continued rocket attacks by Palestinians into Israel,  and Israel’s response of cutting off supplies and arms to the impoverished areas of the Palestine met with retaliatory attacks. This zone of unfettered hatred is a fertile experimental zone to try out Gopin’s theory: that is, the situation is essentially a prisoner’s dilemma where both parties, at least in theory, would be better off by cooperating.  There are two problems however: 1) the populations of individuals in the nation state are not homogeneous with the same religious principles; 2) the current political climate does not reward restraint in the aftermath of killings.  The first point is a function of many variables: Not all Jews take a strict or orthodox interpretation of the Bible; at the same time, the number of non-Jews living in Israel has also increased making it less of a Jewish state.  The second, and perhaps more important point, the current political environment will not allow one side to take damage without the other returning fire. Indeed, how would a prime minister survive if he openly advocated to “turn the other cheek” or to “help” individuals who engage in innocent attacks on women and children in Tel Aviv?  While the principle of helping the enemy is a good one in theory, it is a different question when interpreted in a complex, poisonous political environment.  While Gopin’s theory is an interesting one deserving of further study,  the theory of conflict resolution needs to be tethered to existing realities on the ground.

Bibliography

Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking.  Oxford: Oxford Unviersity Press, 2002

King James Version. [Colorado Springs]: Biblica, 2011. BibleGateway.com.
Web. 26 July 2011.