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?
13 thoughts on “Week 5”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As representative of Hezbollah party, I am very much looking forward to a negotiated peace agreement between Palestine and Israel. Although, Lebanese people have suffered in the past from the hands of Israel soldiers and we are not very happy that Israel invaded Lebanon. Having said that, we favor a peace agreement between the two states to minimize future invasions and to bring a long term peace to the region. Of course, we understand it is going to be very hard to see this in reality but that’s what we hope for to happen in the future.
Netanyahu:
My perspective is as the Prime Minister of Israel is a time of an uncertain future. I want a lasting peace with the Palestinians and with my Arab neighbors, but I cannot accept a peace that would be to Israel’s detriment. In the past, I have contributed to the peace process primarily by calling it nothing more than a process with no real progress, but bow I am willing to support actual change. The primary issues to me have historically been Right of Return and control of Jerusalem, but now I am willing to discuss the opportunity for a Palestinian State. I fully support a Palestinian State that cannot pose a clear danger to the extant Israeli State. In return, I will may be willing to compromise the placement of Israeli troops beyond what would come to be known as the border between the two States. As the head of the Likud Party, I cannot endorse an opinion that would compromise the integrity of Israeli settlements in the West Banks beyond the wall. However, I can try to slow their expansion. I am more than willing to meet with any Arab leader who truly wishes peace; for I know that no one wants a peaceful solution more than I do. Israel is a nation desiring peace. I need only for another leader in the region to meet Israle on reasonable terms in order to craft what I believe would be a lasting peace accord.
Egypt
Egypt’s position on Israel, in the wake of the end of Mubarak’s regime, is still unclear. While there is a possibility of more extreme Islamist views coming to the forefront, it seems likely, given the largely secular nature of the recent uprisings and the divisions in the Islamic movement, that Egypt’s position on Israel will remain consistent with its previous calls for a two state solution with a return to the 67′ borders, removal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and the restoration of Palestinian authority in the Arab quarter of Jerusalem. Egypt’s most immediate concern will be securing the border with Gaza and restoring domestic tranquility.
Israeli Peace Negotiator:
Israel remains fully committed to a two-state solution and we acknowledge that such a solution will require major compromises from both sides. However, before we can even begin to negotiate it is vital that the current threats to Israel’s security are addressed. In particular, it is essential that Hamas renounces violence and moves towards an official recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
Once this condition has been met we will be able to tackle issues such as borders and the status of Palestinian refugees. In regards to borders we feel that the pre-1967 borders are a good starting point, yet they cannot be the end point. Whilst we are willing to remove certain settlements in Arab territory we cannot possibly remove them all. As a result, border adjustments will have to be made to account for the existence of these settlements.
We are aware that millions of Palestinian refugees still remain in limbo about their future. We cannot possibly accept their right of return because it would cause a demographic nightmare in which Arabs would outnumber Jews in a supposedly Jewish state. However, we are willing to work with the international community to seek reparations for these refugees and to help them relocate.
Israeli Labor Party…
As a member of the Israeli Labor Party, I strongly believe that the enduring Arab-Israeli conflict is taking a toll on all of us. It is an ordeal too mentally and physically detrimental for us to bear any longer. Therefore, the new government under Prime Minister Rabin wants to put forth a new outlook, one that promotes “the attainment of peace for Israel” and seeks to “launch vigorous steps to bring about the termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict” (The Israel-Arab Reader 403-404). After all, our futures ARE inextricably intertwined: “we have been destined to live together on the same piece of land in the same country. Our life proceeds alongside yours, with you, and against you” (404). We might as well make things work.
Thus, we are willing to make generous concessions in order to secure such a peace. First, we offer the Palestinians autonomy and self-rule over parts of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Second, Prime Minister Rabin is willing to put a partial freeze on settlement constructions.
We will not, however, hand over such privileges if it threatens our security. We also do not want to give up Jerusalem. Fortunately, we believe that Mr. Arafat shares our strong desire for peace. Therefore, we remind the Palestinians that “you will not get all that you want. We, too, may not get everything we want” (404). This, I think, is a fair enough trade-off. I sincerely hope that the Palestinians meet us halfway in this road to end conflict and repair relations. Let’s cease calling this a peace PROCESS; rather, let’s take the more powerful initiative to MAKE peace.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, I believe that the negotiation of a two-state solution is the only way to bring about lasting peace in the region. Progress in reaching an agreement will not be made at the UN, but through direct conversations and negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. I do not support Palestine’s bid for statehood, because I believe it will be counterproductive and will make negotiations between the two groups much more difficult. I also do not support new construction of Jewish settlements, and I believe it is necessary for Israel to freeze the construction of settlements in order for peace negotiations to be able to proceed. The Palestinian and Israeli leaders must be willing to sit down and negotiate until an agreement can be made, creating a Palestinian state and supporting the state of Israel. The US will do its part to facilitate an agreement on a two-state solution.
As Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, I am very interested in seeing an end to the Israeli occupation and an establishment of a Palestinian state. Although Abbas’ call for statehood at the UN was a bold step, it was merely a step toward a symbolic victory that will not help, and may indeed have the potential to hurt, the Palestinian demand for statehood. Instead, I have called for a strengthening of our national institutions — establishing a free market, separation of powers, and building up the national infrastructure. This could include things such as additional government offices, a stock market, and an airport. As neither violence nor peace talks with Israel have never gained us much ground, it is time we took matters into our own hands. It is up to us to establish ourselves on the land that belongs to us.
*Over the past 20 years, the peace *process* has brought us no closer to independence.
Palestinian Peace Negotiator:
The time has come to to build a sustainable state for Palestinians. We are willing to compromise on two-state solution, but only of Israel brings a fair offer to the table. There will be no peace if Israeli settlements continue to expand in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is a simple fact that Israel must halt settlement and accept the ’67 borders. Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to approve the expansion of Israeli settlements while claiming that we, the Palestinians, are the uncompromising ones. I ask you, how can we commence peaceful negotiations when Israel is drawing their own facts on the ground?
Over the past 20 years, the peace has brought us no closer to independence. Instead, Israel has had time to expand Jewish settlements and undermine the prospects of a viable Palestinian state. This is no longer acceptable.
The Palestinians aim to establish our state alongside Israel on territories Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war — the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as our capital. Furthermore, once our state is established, it is necessary that the existing Israeli settlements be evacuated and that the wall come down, considering it has been built on arbitrary borders.
Syria
Syria’s relationship towards Israel is cold and difficult. Syria does not official recognize Israel, and takes the traditional Arab League stance that is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries. Syria has been at the forefront of the Arab-Israeli conflict, participating in all the major conflicts throughout the years and affirming their commitment to the Palestinians and the ideals of the Arab World to denounce the actions of Israel toward Palestinians and the Arab world.
The most pressing issue with Israel is its occupation of the Golan Heights, a critical area that belongs to Syria. Israeli occupation of the area is a security issue to the Syrian State as well as an example of the expansionist policies of Israel. Any peaceful solution and understanding must address this issue first. Until then, Syria will remain committed to applying non recognition to the Jewish State.
Lebanon is also an important issue for both Israel and Syria. Since the Lebanese Civil War of 1982, Syria has had vital interests in the area, and sees itself as the protector of Lebanese Muslims who have suffered from Israeli invasions in the region as recent as 2006.
Since it seems like the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis cannot guarantee peace in a one-state solution, I believe that a two-state solution is the best means of achieving this. One significant drawback is the complex borders that essentially separate the Palestinian state in two. The 1967 borders are a good starting point, but the issue of settlements makes this solution complicated, and most Israeli Prime Ministers will not accept settlement withdrawals, especially not in Jerusalem. The internationalization of Jerusalem is recommended, but it can also be split with each side promising access to holy sites for other religious groups. Compromise will also require the tearing down of the West Bank barrier, and a promise not to blockade shipments to Gaza.
I, Avigdor Lieberman, am Israel’s foreign minister. I am also the leader of the nationalist, right wing, Yisrael Beitenu party. I’m ready for a two-state solution but I’m concerned about the allegiances of Arab Israeli citizens residing within our borders.
I’m all for coming to a compromise in terms of occupied areas. Very simply, we could have a population exchange program in which the Israeli government would annex a portion of Israeli settlements on/near the border of the West bank and withdraw any Israeli settlers deeper within the area. In exchange the Palestinian state will receive the newly re-bordered West Bank, Galilee, the settlements in the triangle, and the Bedouin settlements in the Negev desert. The Druze population will remain Israeli citizens. Any current Israeli citizens in the newly redrawn Palestinian borders would lose their citizenship.
I am also for the implementation of a loyalty oath. Anyone wishing to become an Israeli citizen who is not already a citizen must sign a loyalty oath to Israel declaring his or her allegiance to the Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. Finally Hamas must be dealt with and eradicated from Israeli soil or even better, eradicated from the world. The only way I think we can do this is by confronting Iran who is funding and morally supporting the organization’s activities.
Mahmoud Abbas:
As head of the PA, I am concerned about my popularity, along with my party’s. For years, we have been negotiating with the Israelis and have nothing to show for it. If anything, things are worse than before. Settlement building continues. Our freedom of movement is still limited, and our economy relies on international aid and Israel.
I am primarily concerned with the Israeli settlers, though. They enrage my people, and undermine my support, since I have pledged to stop curb their activities in the West Bank. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and Israeli settlers continue to move farther and farther into our territory. They threaten my people and push them off their lands, and many Palestinians, in response, attack the settlers.
Ideally, I would like an independent Palestinian state. I want Israel to stop its settlers from building more outposts in our territory, and I want Jerusalem to be split between Israel and Palestine. The right of return is also important, and I hope Israel allows the Palestinians, whose relatives left their land when Israel was created, to return to it. Moreover, I want the US to pressure Israel to negotiate and deal with us on equal terms.
I am willing to compromise, and when negotiating, I am willing to offer significant concessions, if they lead to a settlement (i.e. Palestinian statehood). Regrettably, the leaked Palestine Papers showed how much I was willing to compromise—over settlements in Israel, the Temple Mount, and the right of return—and now many Palestinians see me as spineless. So to bolster my flagging popularity, I have taken the issue of Palestinian statehood before the UN.
The Israeli Orthodox Community
As a representative from the Israeli Orthodox Community, I must convey from the outset my firm conviction that we can come away from these talks with a peace that follows firmly in line with the Jewish tradition. I thank President Netanyahu for his continued support, I welcome my fellow delegates, and urge them to consider carefully the stipulations I put forward here.
It is well known that my community has, in recent years, had significant influence in moving Israeli foreign policy towards the right. Maintaining strict adherence to Jewish moral and religious codes would have it no other way. It is our duty to education young Israelis about the firm tenants of the Jewish faith, that have endured for millennia. We saw the erosion of those tenants as our politics were corrupted by more liberal interpretations of the Torah; this has proven unacceptable to our community and we continue to fight against such perversion.
Lying before us on the table for us today is the need for a solution that must come about without sacrificing territory to which the Jewish people have long established as a homeland. This question of territory is one which presents an issue on which we cannot compromise. The holding of land like the West Bank and Jerusalem is too integral to Jewish identity to surrender. Releasing our hold on such territory is unacceptable in the eyes of the Orthodox community.
The orthodox community has grown enormously in the recent past, fulfilling a mandate that the Israeli population must replenish its population. We have educated our youth in the best Jewish tradition to ensure that the enshrined values of our faith do not falter. Such is our contribution for Israel, and it is unacceptable to us that our youth may find themselves without sufficient housing or resources in the future. For this reason, the territories we maintain are integral for ensuring that Israel can continue to grow and maintain a high standard of living.
There is very little else that our community can contribute to this conversation so long as this issue of territory proves so contentious. Unless our esteemed counterparts can find some other issue upon which they can negotiate, our position is final.
Domestically, we realize that there are a variety of contentious issues that stem from adhering so strictly to Jewish code. It is on these issues that we feel some compromise can be made. As an exception for educational study must be found in order to pass over mandatory military service, much of our population lives below the poverty line devoting their lives to religious study, forbidden to gain employment. There have been several alternatives to this path laid out, and it is acceptable to us that our youth may serve in the military, provided they can serve in programs where strict separation from women also serving is maintained and their dietary restrictions are met. In this way, we are prepared to participate in the body that will fight to defend our homeland and God-given territories.