Q&A: How can faith leaders help build peace?

The violence between Israel and Palestine in recent days has raised new questions of whether sustainable peace is truly achievable in the region.

Airstrikes on both sides have left hundreds of Palestinian civilians dead in Gaza and killed 12 people in Israel, in a “senseless cycle of bloodshed, terror and destruction,” according to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

Despite the seeming hopelessness of the situation, Reverend Gary Mason, renowned Northern Irish peace builder, believes courageous leadership and the commitment to pursue peace over sectarian violence can put an end to the conflict.

The Methodist minister gained his peace building experience during the height of the Irish Troubles — a period between 1969-1998, which pitted Irish Catholic nationalists against pro-British Protestant loyalists in brutal sectarian conflict. His efforts to foster dialogue between paramilitary leaders, Irish, and British government officials earned him an Order of the British Empire.

Today, he uses the lessons learned in Northern Ireland to advise key Palestinian and Israeli politicians, religious leaders, and heads of civil society organizations on conflict resolution and peace processes.    

Speaking with Devex, Mason described the challenges in the region and how his organization, Rethinking Conflict, hopes to help Israeli and Palestinian civil society leaders negotiate an end to the violence.  

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What opportunities and challenges have you faced as an external faith leader advising on the peace process?

Sometimes religious actors are very trusted mediators because we're not coming at this from a heavy partisan political framework. I say to people, look, I'm coming here, as a friend, as a learner, as a listener. I know no conflict in the world is identical, but the common features at the core are that it's a breakdown in human relationships that allows violence to emerge.

Some people suggest that the reason why the efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are failing is due to a flawed methodology in pursuing the peace process. They look at the conflict as if it’s a technical problem that can be resolved by a selective and inclusive leadership, but the strategy is failing to address a very complex entanglement of grievances, beliefs, and ideologies, which are at the root of the problem.

What types of peace processes are there and what are the pros and cons?

I believe there are three main types of peace processes. First, you’ve got Sri Lanka, where you defeat the Tamil Tigers completely and there’s no peace agreement or negotiations. It’s a military victory. However, the risk is that none of us can guarantee today that violence will never again break out, especially because with the power of memory, you pass these stories of defeat from generation to generation.

Second, you have South Africa, where you get colonial regime change at the top, but in reality, not a lot of difference at the bottom. The structures of apartheid have been dismantled but the country is not a utopia and the vast majority of South Africans have not benefited economically.

In Northern Ireland, we had a second-preference peace process, where you create a win-win situation for all the protagonists. No one gets everything they want, but they get enough to move their own constituency forward.

What lessons from Northern Ireland do you think would apply to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations?

First, leaders on all sides of the conflict need to sincerely believe that peace is preferable to conflict. They also need to be willing to take the risks to achieve that peace, while providing the vision that ensures they actually maintain the confidence of their constituents.

Second, Palestinians and Israelis have said there is a real desire to break the cycle of violence, and to save future generations from the horrors of conflict. We are trying to build up a critical mass of people who believe that there are alternatives to conflict and that this is not the way it's always going to be.

The third thing is that a lack of trust on both sides is an inevitable feature of building peace, but it cannot be used as justification for not beginning the process. Trust comes over time, through dialogue and by building confidence through concrete actions.

Additionally, attempts to resolve a conflict through military force are ultimately futile, and they don’t result in sustainable security for either side. Instead, they trigger further cycles of violence and the idea that, “we will hurt you as much as you hurt us.” In Northern Ireland, we found that security was only achieved when dialogue was prioritized and the causes of conflict were addressed. In our case, that was the establishment of frameworks and political institutions which gave space for each community to peacefully pursue their vision politically rather than through armed violence.

Finally, the role of civic society is one of the things we really got right in the Northern Irish peace process. Politicians, by their very nature, work under the assumption that once the deal is done, societal healing automatically follows. To my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. There’s a long, protracted implementation. Religious leaders, academics, women’s groups, community workers, dye the peace into the social fabric.

Is religion constructive or destructive in conflict situations?

Most conflicts are about land, identity, or religion. Within the Irish context, it wasn't a religious war, but I would say there was an undercurrent of religion and I think it's the same in Israel and Palestine.

Religious leaders need to have the integrity to name what I call “toxic religion” and our “theologies of superiority.” Religion and “othering” have paved the way for serious atrocities over the years. Particularly from a Jewish tradition, you only have to look at the role of the church in paving the way for the Holocaust through centuries of religious antisemitism.

Even so, can religion make a valid contribution to peace processes? I think the answer is yes. Those religious leaders who’ve been willing to take thoughtful, strategic risks, have been able to achieve some things that are pretty significant. Additionally, religious leaders can bring a moral framework into a contested space — principles like honesty, integrity, generosity. And there are a number of religious leaders working with different actors on the inside to try to bring a conclusion to the violence.

Devex, with support from our partner GHR Foundation, is exploring the intersection between faith and development. Visit the Focus on: Faith and Development page for more. Disclaimer: The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of GHR Foundation.