What perspective do you (in your assigned class role) have on the Arab-Israeli conflict? What is your assigned role, what are your major interests in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and what would a satisfactory resolution look like to you? What do you think are acceptable compromises and what compromises are not acceptable in resolving the conflict?
16 thoughts on “Week 5”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am a peace negotiator for the Israeli left. My primary belief is that Peace is obtainable and all measures should be made to ensure this goal is achieved. I fully believe that Jewish people have right to this land but we recognize that we are destined to live with Palestinians in this contested area; in order for both inhabitants to be able to live safely and securely, it is pertinent that an agreement is made. At this point, it seems that the two cultures are unable to co-exist under one country. It appears that a two state solution is the best option, which allows people autonomy and freedom and nationalism. However, there are some factors that cannot be sacrificed for peace, primarily, national security. I fully support a two-state solution that promotes the security and integrity of Israel. I believe that Israel needs to put a halt to the building of settlements in the West Bank, which only further divides our societies.
I am Salam Fayyad, and I’m looking to change up the typically path to Palestinian statehood. At the end of the day, peace talks haven’t been working. Taking the vote on statehood to the UN would have been a hollow victory in name only. Statehood is not something that is going to happen to us through peace talks and negotiations – rather, statehood must be an inevitable byproduct of our people’s infrastructure. If we develop our own free market, founded on transparent institutions that mirror those of any successful state, our statehood will be unquestionable once we declare it. We have to focus less on Israel and more on building up our own image. We need good internal security, and we need stronger leaders in power. Despite occupation and unresolved conflict, progressing as a state would will simply lead to us becoming a state. I have international diplomatic and financial support now more than ever, so if we can move past our entrenched conflicts with the Israelis that groups like Hamas espouse, we have a real shot at statehood.
I am Avigdor Lieberman, Foreign Minister of Israel and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. Though I have been accused of being a hawkish, rightist, and unreasonable extremist, you have to understand that the security of the State of Israel is my number one priority. International misconceptions, unfounded Arab accusations, and growing popular sentiment supporting the perceived “underdog” cause of the Palestinians—these are not my concerns. I believe that Jews have a right to this land; it’s not religious fanaticism, it’s secular rationalism. We are an ethnic minority and statehood is what protects us from oppression. However, that statehood is under attack, and anyone who does not recognize the precarious situation that our beloved homeland finds itself in is either blind or misinformed.
Given that, here is what a reasonable solution looks like to me: a two-state solution that does NOT divide Jerusalem, that does secure defensible borders, and that ensures Palestinian political and economic strength before granting statehood as a means to promote viability. This new Palestinian state would need to be under the control of a strong, unified Palestinian Authority; put bluntly, Hamas cannot be a part of its government. Finally, the proximity of this new state would require some changes to Israeli law and the way we interact with our neighbors. Principally, I propose changes to our citizenship laws that would require a loyalty oath from all.
However, the notion that we are near arriving at this solution is slightly off base. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. “The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions: That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict. Any political process has to secure an improvement in the Palestinians’ quality of life and education. Attempts to bring about a political arrangement before securing peace to the Israelis and economic improvement for the Palestinians are likely to fail.” Israel needs a legitimate and perceivable conclusion to the Palestinian security threat before we even consider removing forces from the West Bank. Contrary to the catchphrase of the American government, a freeze on settlement construction is not the first step in this process; it is one of the last ones. In the negotiations today, we are willing to offer you many things, such as the removal of checkpoints and assistance to the Palestinian economy. We want to help the Palestinian Authority rule its population and improve the lives of its citizens. But we will not forfeit our own interests and make false promises of peace and statehood until the Palestinian Authority can convince us that our people and our land is safe.
As a concerned neighbor, the Syrian government has not only witnessed, but participated in this ongoing cycle of violence between Palestine and Israel. However, this needs to stop. Dialogue and negotiation not bullets and ultimatums need to be exchanged in order for long lasting peace to occur. As President of Syria, you probably smirk at my attempt to advocate for peace while there are protests occurring in my own homeland. Do not dismiss me because of these uprisings. I, myself, am offering political reforms to my fellow Syrians and I am confident they will accept. But, please, let us focus on how Syria will not officially recognize Israel until a peace treaty is reached. We ask for the return of Golan Heights to Syria and the Palestinians right to self-determination. A two-state solution would be ideal. With a commitment to the ideals of the Arab World, we desire for these wishes to be accomplished and are looking forward to this discussion.
As a member of the media and an advocate of responsible journalism, it is my job to be “motivated by, first of all, a commitment to the truth, and seeking the truth” but also a sense of fairness. In an ideal world, I would hope to see a coming together between the Palestinian and Israelis. In order for this to happen I agree with former Prime Minister Tony Blair that we are in need of leaders out of both Israel and the Arab world who have the courage to compromise. Palestinian right to return may have to be adapted to what have become established Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. The scene is now set for what could be an intelligent discussion between two leaders, both President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, particularly Abbas are in positions where engaging in peace talks would do well to their public images. Abbas is currently trying to acquire state recognition within the UN, recognition which inherently requires that Palestine reengage in discussions with ISrael. Netanyahu could perhaps use a compromise like this to take some of the limelight away from Abbas’s world tour for statehood.
As a journalist and also an Iranian, I know that these conversations are necessary for maintaing a stable environment in the Arab world. There must be compromises by both states, and leaders must realize that these compromises may force them to tell their people “hard things”. But what is important is that talk continues, and a concrete effective deal is met, showing that the Arab world is capable of following through and working together for peace.
I will not be satisfied until there is a recognized Palestinian state and Israel withdraws completely from The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and Palestinian prisoners are freed from Israeli prisons. The Israeli state has been a source of contention in the region since its formation. Border disputes are among the prevalent reasons for the state’s controversy, by designating distinct Palestinian borders, an integral portion of conflicts could subside.
Egypt has had a long and complicated relationship with Israel. Pre- war in 1967, Egypt was a staunch supporter of Arab League policies of non-negotiation and non-recognition. Early speeches of Anwar Sadat illustrate the uncompromising stance and confidence of the Sate: “we will continue to fight…to find ways and means to restore and obtain respect for the legitimate rights of the people of Palestine” (Lacquer 150). Yet following defeat and Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Sadat signed a peace treaty in 1979, fracturing relations with the Arab League and ultimately leading to the assassination of Sadat.
As such, our position is ambiguous. As a significant mediator of the situation, our stance on the situation is vague, as we are more intent upon fostering reconciliation than proposing new and practical solutions. That being said, there is rising popular support and sympathy for the Palestinian movement and bid for statehood. Politically, however, national security remains the most important consideration for us. As we share a border with Gaza, the stability of the Palestinian state is a central concern. As such, compromises that would allow Gaza to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are a threat to our national security, and we do not wish to take responsibility for this area. Should the extremist, Islamic movements on either side of the border coordinate their efforts, our control over the Sinai peninsula (an extremely important territory for us), would be compromised.
However, with the rise of the Arab spring and the removal of President Mubarak, things are changing. No one truly knows what the new stance of Egypt will be in issues concerning Israel. With the (hopeful) rise of democracy, who knows what political party will come into power. As Mubarak faced much criticism for his recognition and dealings with Israel and the West, it remains to be seen how his successor will navigate the complex waters. If the recent protests and attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo are indicative of significant change, then perhaps Israel will have to look elsewhere for an Arab mediator.
As the peace negotiator for the Israeli government I come to the negotiations with high hopes for the potential of coming to an agreement once and for all in Middlebury, Vermont. Israel believes that it is in its best interest as well as that of the Palestinians to establish lasting peace between these two peoples. I simultaneously speak for our prime minister and the other parties represented in our parliament, the Knesset. Recognizing these disparate agendas, I must identify their common ground and present it to the Palestinian peace negotiator.
First and foremost, Israel is willing to negotiate for a two-state solution satisfactory to both sides. The exact borders will have to be worked out in negotiations, but we are prepared to offer the Palestinians complete control over Gaza and over parts of the West Bank. Having said that, we must highlight that any possible solution to this conflict can only be implemented in a terror-free environment. As both the Labor Party representative and our Prime Minister have said, as long as the terrorism against our people continues, Israel will have to respond with force.
As a leader of Hamas and one of Palestine’s Prime Ministers, I believe Islam is the only solution to conflict in these regions. Only under its shadow can all members, regardless of religion, be safe and secure. It is because Islam has been booted that there has been chaos in the region, and our rightful retrieval of the land is the only way to solve the peace problem. “Peaceful solutions” are a waste of time, as Palestinians should not have to compromise. Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. It has holy significance and therefore is our duty to occupy it. The only solution is Jihad, and we should not have to negotiate with and leave our destiny up to imperialists looking to benefit from our land’s resources. Hamas is a humane movement, and will only become hostile to those hostile towards us, which has been the case with the evil Zionists acting as criminals of war. When the land originally taken from us in 1967 is restored, prisoners returned, and refugees are tended to, we will consider negotiations. Arab and Islamic people cannot tire and must continue on strong against the Zionist enemies to regain what was unfairly stripped from us.
Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, associated delegates, ladies and gentlemen: as President of the United States, I, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, am hosting this peace conference here in Middlebury, Vermont, with earnest hopes that the disputed Palestinian territory, in conflict now for over 60 years, can reach a decisive and lasting peace benefiting both Israel and Palestinian Nationalists. The United States takes pride in its long-standing friendship and alliance with the Israeli nation, and wishes to see their interests met in these talks. Nonetheless, an end to the violence and terror that has afflicted this region for many decades is of utmost concern, and so I would ask representatives from both Israel and Palestine to approach this discussion with tolerance and an eye to an abiding peace between their peoples. Thank you.
As a member of the Israeli Labor Party, I firmly advocate for an end to violence and peace as soon as possible. I do not believe that bloodshed is necessary for us to settle this conflict that has gone on for far too long. This said, Israeli securitand prosperity will always come first and foremost for me and my peers, and should the terror not abate on the part of our neighbors, we will continue to use force against them, and we will continue to win. We, the Israeli left, are ready to live peacefully and in tandem with our Palestinian peers. We ask is that they acknowledge our sovereignty as a state and that over Jerusalem. We hope that in these accords in Middlebury, Vermont, we can come to an agreement in which everyone gains some of what they seek. Neither side will gain everything it wishes, but this is the nature of compromise. I certainly hope that the violence, which only encourages more violence, will desist immediately and that we can proceed through negotiation and reason. Only through understanding will there be a more peaceful co-existence in the same land where roots exist for both groups. We are all from this land, and we will need to learn to share it, under Israeli sovereignty.
As Orthodox Christian, our major concern is the bad economic and political situation in the region due to the Israeli-Arab conflict. This has greatly resulted to increasing migration of the Christian community, with many families taking difficult decisions to leave our land. We should be faithful to Christ’s teachings especially amid tensions and setbacks, but unfortunately we are only human beings and we often choose the easier way out – to immigrate to the “distant” Christian land such as U.S., Canada and Australia. Especially for Palestinian Christians, emigration has been a big problem as Israeli occupations have destroyed their homeland. For Christians residing in Jerusalem, the presence of the community in the Holy City is our confirmation of the Christ’s new beginning; therefore we hope for a greater peace in this region. We envision peace and compromise between two national groups, Palestinians and Israelis, as well as among three religious groups, Jews, Muslims and Christians – that would satisfy both national and religious aspirations for each community.
Politically, the Orthodox Christians’ stand is also influenced by the particular sector of the Church. For Christian Zionists or the Christian Right, for example, an unconditional support for Israel’s policies is often expressed, and they constantly seek the financial and political support from the U.S. via domestic lobbyists. For Palestinian Christian Churches, there’s always a complication between national and religious interests and it’s hard not to weight them equally. Overall, Christians wish to see peace and support the region’s political development that encourages a solution to the conflict.
As the Prime Minister of Israel it is my duty to ensure the continued survival and protection of our sovereign nation, besieged on all sides by anarchists bent on the destruction of the Israeli state. I view this conflict as one fought between two peoples whose actions on one side have been dictated not by logic, reason or any discernible desire for lasting peace and on the other by a genuine willingness to negotiate past the minor and inconsequential issue of Jewish settlements towards a mutually acceptable solution. I will not succumb to the forces of terrorism and other such cowardly tactics employed by an opposition that has characterized itself through violent acts, nor will I allow negotiations to be swayed by a religious-minded fundamentalist organization using the international community to solicit misplaced sympathy and support.
The only two state solution that I would be willing to consider is that which I put forward in my 2009 speech at the Bar-Ilan University, that is to say, an entirely demilitarized Palestinian State that maintains no military whatsoever in addition to recognizing the State of Israel and ultimately relinquishes the right of return for its refugees. Furthermore, I continue to stand by my “three no(s)”, all of which I have maintained since my first term of office;
1. No withdrawal from the Golan Heights
2. No discussion of the case of Jerusalem
3. No negotiations under any preconditions (from Palestinian leadership)
That is all
שלום בחוץ
I would hope the Jews more than any other group would understand what it feels like to be persecuted. They will use the fact that their scriptures talk of Jerusalem and other holy places in this region to lay claim to our land. But as a proud Palestinian I only ask that they follow their holy scriptures and do unto others as they would like to be done unto them. I dream of a time when my children will live in a free Palestinian State.
I understand and appreciate the responsibility given unto me as a Palestinian peace negotiator and I would like to add i do not take it lightly. Our demands are few and reasonable.
1.Stop building homes in our territories.
2. Stop jewish migration to Israel
3. let us have fool control of Gaza and the West Bank .
4. Release ALL our people currently held in Israeli prisons.
5. We also want full monetary reimbursement for Palestinians who lost their homes due to the border lines continually being blurred by Israel.
I look forward to the day when this land sees no oppression of one by another. Because that is what you are, oppressors to our people. There is very little we are willing to compromise on. Our people have suffered for too long. The above requests are reasonable if we are to have and Israel and Palestinian State sitting next to each other.The international community is watching, what will you do Israel? Continue to oppress our people?
My assigned role is Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the PLO and President of the Palestinian Authority. As a main architect of the Oslo peace accords, he certainly lies on the moderate side of the Palestinian political spectrum, but is not afraid to pick battles when he needs to, a trait evident in his latest push for UN recognition. One stumbling block that Abbas brings to the table is that he extended his Presidential term unilaterally, and thus Hamas does not consider him a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; although this has began to change with a recently announce unification deal.
Abbas’ ideal solution would be a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with mutually agreeable land swaps, and Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. He is also an unwavering proponent of the Palestinian right to return. Gaza would, of course, also be “liberated.”
Generally, Abbas renounces violence and recognizes Israel’s right to exist, positions which in and of themselves represent a compromise in the view of many Palestinians. He has also shown a willingness to negotiate 1 for 1 and swaps, based on 1967 borders. Issues that he considers nonnegotiable include Jerusalem not becoming the “undivided capital” of Israel, a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations, and some form of “right of return” for Palestinians.
I will not be happy until my people are allowed to live in the land that is truly ours; the land that God gave us. We will give nothing back. Eretz Yisrael, as commanded in the Torah, is from the Red Sea, to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates. We are a people who have been persecuted since the beginning of time, and we the only land we want is the land that is truly our home, and the home of our people from all eternity: the Land of Israel. The Palestinians came long after we arrived, and they have no right to be here. I do not care what the United Nations thinks the borders of the state of Israel are, I care only about the Land of Israel as outlined in the Torah from the words of God. The only compromise that I will accept is one in which we are guaranteed the whole land so that the third temple can be built and the messiah will come.