The 400-page ‘peace manual’ said to have been brought out jointly recently by Palestinian and Israeli peace activists may be currently considered cumbrous, excessively detailed and top-heavy with impracticable ideas, but it needs to be seen as path-breaking on account of the fact that it is a veritable people’s initiative aimed at ending the wasting, long drawn- out conflict. It is not only a memorable meeting of minds of non-state actors from across the hitherto obdurate regional divide, but a voluminous testimony to the optimism welling among the Palestinian and Israeli publics on the possibility of a just peace.

To the extent to which the ‘manual’ is all this and more, it should serve as a reminder to publics facing the seemingly interminable agonies of war and armed conflict anywhere, that they should indeed have a huge ‘say’ in conflict-resolution efforts and that such efforts need not necessarily be the preserve of those who are considered state actors. Most significantly, the Palestinian-Israeli initiative is proof that the prime concern for peace resides most steadfastly in the people and that by virtue of this longing they could be at cross purposes with state actors, who may not always act in the best interests of the people.

It is fairly well known that people-based initiatives on these lines exist among the more articulate sections of the Indian and Pakistani publics and that a people’s peace movement played a significant role in bridging the divides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Sri Lanka has not been so fortunate. Most of Sri Lanka’s ‘peace initiatives’ have hitherto been primarily state-powered and, therefore, largely oblivious to the aspirations of the country’s communities. Nor have civic action groups, people’s organizations, ‘peace’ think tanks etc., managed to consistently galvanize the people’s energies in the direction of bringing ethnic peace, which may not necessarily be in accordance with the state’s conception of peace.

This seeming lack of ability of the ordinary people from across Sri Lanka’s ethnic divide, to come together to formulate a set of peace proposals for Sri Lanka, has facilitated endemic state intervention in Sri Lanka’s conflict-resolution efforts and, as experience thus far has proved, this has not always accrued to the people’s benefit. In fact, the predominant role played by governments and formal political actors in Sri Lanka’s efforts at bringing peace has only stymied conflict resolution efforts because popular aspirations and the interests of governments, for instance, have not always been synonymous.

The truth of the latter position is proved by the present Sri Lankan government’s seeming reluctance to forge ahead with the task of evolving a political solution to the country’s conflict. On the other hand, national security is continuing to engage the state disproportionately. It is the ruling elite which benefits mainly by this preoccupation with security. A just political solution, however, would benefit all. Now that the military phase of the conflict has come to an end, the time is ripe for the ordinary people of Sri Lanka to come together to press for a just peace, which may start with the full implementation of the 13th amendment but which must go well beyond it in terms of devolved power, if peace prospects are to prove bright.

In fact, time is of the essence. The seeming imbroglio which the Middle East conflict has today turned out to be, pleads for the urgent, accelerated and enthusiastic pursuit of political solutions to identity-based conflicts. Weak-kneed efforts by particularly state actors to bring a just peace only help breed a plethora of exploitative and parasitic elements with a vested interest in the prolongation of these armed conflicts. Today, for instance, it is no secret that the military-industrial complex of the West gains considerably, in monetary terms, from the armed conflict in the Middle East. In other words, protracted wars are arms dealers’ delights.

Today there seems to be a broad consensus among the more significant political actors of the Middle East that the two-state solution is best for the region. This is the position of the West too. Yet, there is foot-dragging on the part of Israel and its foreign backers, in facilitating talks with the Palestinian sides and in implementing this solution. Meanwhile, anti-Israeli sentiments are hardening. The Al-qaeda chief, for instance, was recently quoted as asking the US, as the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks dawned: ‘Ask yourselves to determine your position: is your security, your blood, your children, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation dearer to you than the security of the Israelis, their children, their economy?’

The statement points to the key role an equitable solution to the Middle East conflict could play in defusing tensions in even South-West Asia where US-led NATO troops are embroiled in putting down a bloody insurgency by Al-qaeda and Taliban militants. In other words, the unresolved Middle-East conflict provides the militants in South West Asia with the motive force to keep the region on the boil. Besides, hesitation by Israel and the West, keeps the Palestinian polity divided and helps fuel the Hisbollah militancy. Such lack of resolution also provides anti-Western powers with an excuse to sustain and aggravate divisions within the Palestinian polity by backing those Palestinian groups which have been opposing reconciliatory efforts.

Meanwhile, there does not seem to be a let-up by those groups within Israel which have been intent on going ahead with Jewish settlements on contested land. The apparent indecisiveness on the part of the Israeli state on this question seems to be encouraging these expansionist aims and also providing Jewish extremist sentiment with the necessary fuel to perpetuate their divisive activities.

It is on account of these ominous symptoms of stalemate on the Middle East peace efforts front, that a people-centred push for a just peace seems necessary. The required thrust for an unflagging peace does not seem to be coming from the state parties and it is mainly for this reason that the people need to take things in hand.