BELFAST — In West Belfast, much like in the West Bank, there is a huge wall dividing two different ethnic populations. The Catholic neighborhood of Clonard touches the South side of the wall, while the Shankill, a Protestant area, encroaches from the North. Many Catholics, or Nationalists, do not consider the British government to be the legitimate power in Northern Ireland and they wish for Northern Ireland to unite again with the Republic in the South. Protestants, or Unionists/Loyalists, wish for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

From the late 1960s until just recently, the conflict has been fierce. Thousands have died on both sides, mostly innocent citizens, but Northern Ireland still remains a part of the United Kingdom.

Thankfully, violence has subsided in this divided community and for much of Northern Ireland during the last decade, mostly because of paramilitary ceasefires and the Belfast Agreement of 1998, which, among other things, guaranteed power sharing in the Northern Ireland government for both Protestants and Catholics. It did not solve all the problems, but it was a great first step in ending this centuries-long conflict.

What was so amazing about the agreement was that virtually every political party on both sides, no matter how radical, was invited to the talks, and all the major parties but one signed the agreement. On the Catholic side, the SDLP (Social Democratic Labour Party), led by John Hume, and Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) led by Gerry Adams, were signatories. On the Protestant side, David Trimble’s UUP (Ulster Unionist Party), which represented the vast majority of Protestants, not only signed the agreement, but also acknowledged that Sinn Féin would no longer be considered an associate of the IRA and would be a legitimate Catholic party that would play a part in the new government. Only one major Protestant party, the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party), did not sign the agreement.

What was the result of having all of these players at the table? The Agreement was supported by more than 71 percent of the people of Northern Ireland in a May 1998 referendum. John Hume and David Trimble won the Nobel Peace Prize, and stability was restored to an otherwise violent region of the world.

Then something strange happened. By 2003, the radical Catholic and Protestant parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, had more seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly than their moderate counterparts. Since the DUP does not recognize the agreement and will not talk to Sinn Féin, the peace process is at a bit of a standstill. This may be a good sign, however. If any new and better deal is to be reached, the two radical parties will have to initiate the dialogue because their majority is slim, and the electorate has proven that it will respond to agreements reached with both sides involved.

If no new agreement is reached, the parties will eventually fall out of power.

There are many similarities between the “troubles” in Northern Ireland and the conflict in the Middle East, and leaders from both the Israeli and Palestinian camps can learn much from the success in Northern Ireland. First, and most importantly, a ceasefire on both sides needs to be in effect if any progress is to be made. Second, if and when talks do begin in the Middle East, every major party must, no matter how radical or moderate, be involved in the debate as long as those groups represent a clear majority of the combined Israeli and Palestinian electorate. Hardliners will be accepted and more willing to come to the table if there is a ceasefire.

Finally, the parties involved must be able to deliver on any promises made. This means that groups within both the Israeli and Palestinian camp need to reach some sort of consensus on what they collectively want before talks begin. That way they can be united as they sell the results to the electorate.

Recent positive events, most notably the death of Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s shift in priorities from mainly playing to his base to making the future of the Jewish state the most important issue (hint to our president), have led me to believe that a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians is possible. I am not advocating any solution but what I am in favor of is a deal that the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on, tolerate and uphold.

A conclusion to the conflict in the Middle East may be decades away, but at least we know that peace is possible.

Don’t believe me? Just look at Northern Ireland.

Andy Boegel ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies, and history. He is currently studying abroad at the National University of Ireland, Galway.