The Meaning of Life

In the greater scheme of life, the preservation and continuation of one’s culture is likely one of society’s ultimate end-goals. As children are raised, they are educated in features of their respective society and encouraged to continue the heritage as they grow. Unfortunately, learned hatred for other cultures is often mixed in within these teachings. It is this notion of learned hatred that lies at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For more than two thousand years, the struggle for the territories that encompass Palestine and Israel has spilled over and resulted in armed conflict. No clearer was this issue brought to the forefront then when Israel proclaimed itself a state and began colonization efforts of Palestinian land. Ever since that fateful day in 1948, the struggle for the succession of two unique cultures has been stronger then it has for centuries. Throughout my semester-long project, I focused on this cultural struggle and dove deep into its history and being to try and understand the politics and emotions of the issues and comment on a peaceful way forward.

History
I strongly believe that it is impossible to move forward without truly understanding your past. As such, I spent the first few weeks with my blog developing a greater understanding of the history of the issue. Beginning with this BBC News Special Report, I delved deep into the early history of the issue. With information dating back as early as ancient and biblical times, it quickly became apparent that the struggle between the two cultures dates farther back then most care to acknowledge. For, while the lands were originally inhabited by a mostly Jewish population, the cities were entirely destroyed in the early 100’s and the Arab population conquered the remnants in the late 600’s. The history of the struggle picked up further with this PBS Publication. Offering a mostly neutral position to the modern-day struggles, the article portrays the various bouts of violence from both perspectives. Unsurprisingly, both sides contributed to many of the conflicts.

My journey into recent history continued with an investigation into the failed Camp David II peace talks. By researching this JMCC article and this NY Times article, I became distinctly aware of the staunch protectionism that both leaders portrayed in the failed peace talks. While many believe that it was the Palestinian Leader, Yasir Arafat, who was to blame for the failed exercise, it is important to note that Israel was not without blame itself. For, while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak did cede concessions on many things, the failure to relinquish total control of East Jerusalem was an understandable non-starting point for Mr. Arafat. With the benefit of hindsight, it was no surprise to learn that these failed peace talks lead directly to the Second Intifada.

As a final journey through history, I researched the most recent outbreak of violence that occurred over the summer of 2014. Much like the many bouts of violence that preceded it, the 2014 conflict began as retaliatory violence from both sides. As stated by both this BBC News article and this Guardian article, small skirmishes related to the unsubstantiated recapture of freed Palestinian inmates, and an unrelated Palestinian killing of three Israeli troops, quickly blossomed into the 50 days of war.

Through this relatively brief look into history, the immensely fragile nature of the situation has become readily apparent. For as the circumstance of the situation finds itself doused in lighter fluid, all major actors surrounding it stand with lit matches in hand.

The Politics of it All
For many reasons, it is difficult to begin a conversation about the politics that surround the conflict. At the forefront of those reasons though, are the horrendous atrocities that were inflicted upon the Jewish people during World War II. Yet to move forward, and completely address the issues currently facing the two nations, we must acknowledge these atrocities, remember them so they never repeat themselves, and treat the Jewish people as any other culture of the world. In light of this, I moved forward with my research unabated.

Throughout my research into the history, the proposed solutions, and the current affairs, it was readily apparent that most all of the political leaders of both sides, both current and former, held a similar, realist, political perspective on globalization. For, at their core, the leaders of Palestine and Israel all put their strong state before anything else and focused on the might of their military and economy as they pushed for their respective beliefs and desires. This textbook definition of realism was evident throughout the peace talks mentioned earlier, as well as the discussions of plausible solutions. For example, in this BBC News article, in which Obama discusses his 2011 desire and support for a two-state solution, Netanyahu’s firm realist sentiments emerge through his resolute dismissal of the plan and his claims that it would be “indefensible.” Similarly, Abbas’s realist viewpoints are firmly recognized through his repeated attempts to have Palestine recognized as an official state in the eyes of the UN (an example of which is found in this Times of Israel article). And yet, as the issue continues to proceed with no clear answer in sight, hints of radicalism have begun to appear.

Traces of radicalism, or the disregard for most every culture save for your own, began floating to the surface in my research as I looked into the issue of apartheid. As I learned by reading this Electronic Intifada article, and this Times of Israel article, it quickly became apparent to me that the built up tension towards the Israelis was founded in their apartheid and colonialist actions imposed upon the Palestinians. While the two articles differ in the use of the apartheid label (it is important to note that both articles do acknowledge the fact that apartheid actions are taking place – the Times of Israel article simply chooses not to label them such due to the lack of direct intent), they both agree on the radical favoritism that is being enacted through colonization.

Chasing the radicalism rabbit down it’s proverbial hole, I then purposely sought out distinct examples of such behavior. Unfortunately, I didn’t have to search for very long. As evidenced by this Al Jazeera article which discusses the further criminalization of children’s stone throwing, and this Slate article that reveals the true racism of his reelection statements, the recent actions of Netanyahu and his greater government are downright sad and disturbing. And yet, the radicalism is not contained to one side. For, as was so poignantly described in this Atlantic article, Hamas’ true goal in life can be summed up as follows, “While Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made clear that it would rather kill Jews.”

As the struggle between the two nations continues to degrade over time, so too does the political outlooks of the respective leaders. For what was once a mostly staunch realist perspective, has begun to deteriorate into radicalist tendencies.

Culture
Coming full circle now, I return to the notion of culture. At their core, the above feelings, political views, and actions of present and history are all founded in the roots of a society’s, and subsequently individual’s, cultural basis. As UNESCO states, “Culture is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterizes a society or a group.” It should come as no surprise then, that the downward spiral of the situation continues and intensifies. For as mentioned earlier, the cultural teachings of both nations continue to intensify the bred, and mostly off-base, hatred towards one another. So in an attempt to further understand this seemingly simplistic, yet drastically diverse, issue, I take a step back and look to the greater theories of culture preservation found in the book Controversies in Globalization.

Tackling the question of whether globalization efforts should strive to preserve local culture or not, the book presents the writings of two leading professors who take opposing sides. Arguing for the preservation of unique cultures, Elsa Stamatopoulou argues for increased governmental efforts and measures to ensure the continued survival of all of the world’s indigenous cultures. Stamatopoulou calls for the inclusion of all cultures at the globalization policies table and further advocates for international efforts to ensure that such inclusion occurs. On the other side of the issue, Kwame Anthony Appiah argues against the concerted effort of preserving cultures. In his section, Appiah calls for reduced measures of preservation to enable the focus to shift towards the individual people and the current state of affairs.

Applying this rhetoric to the current struggle, I find it difficult not to correlate Stamatopoulou’s logic and the current state of cultural affairs. For as I have learned through the completion of this exercise, it is both Israel’s and Palestine’s unwavering desire to have their culture succeed (and furthermore, the international support and aide that both sides receive to further their respective interests) that has elevated what began so many years ago as a much more peaceful affair, to the current state of near-constant warfare. For if Appiah’s individualistic viewpoints on culture preservation were implemented, I strongly believe that the continual spread of mutual hatred would be diminished and we would find ourselves in a different state of affairs.

The Way Forward
Throughout the Arab Spring, Israel and Palestine have remained relatively isolated. As the nations surrounding them endured immense turmoil to overthrow corrupted regimes, Palestine and Israel remained locked in their own history of violence. While changes to aide packages, both military and financial, and tightened borders constituted the entirety of the nation’s actual involvement with the uprising, a deeper philosophical meaning may well be extracted. For while the Arab Spring has just begun for many nations, an argument could well be made that has Israel and Palestine’s conflict well into its own summer or fall rendition.

In the end, I’m afraid that the current state of cultural hatred leaves the situation at a point where no amount of boundary defining statehoods could surmise a peaceful solution. For as Benjamin Pogrund stated in this Times of Israel article, “You’re all lying, you’re all doing horrible things, and you’re all pointing the finger of blame at the other. And you’re all to blame. We’re all to blame.” So how is a solution to this ancient struggle found? I believe that a start to an answer is provided in the wise words of Kwame Appiah: “ . . . [it] starts by taking individuals – not nations, tribes, or ‘peoples’ – as the proper object of moral concern.”

The Here and Now

The back-story is set. The history has been told. The players identified. So what’s the latest? In my last regular post for this blog, that’s the exact question I asked. According to this New York Times article, the situation remains relatively the same, but the relationship between the players has grown worse for wear. As the authors point out, Netanyahu made statements that he would not support a Palestinian state, and then quickly retreated saying he doesn’t think the current situation allows for such. At the same time, he made racist comments towards the Arab population of Israel. As the article states, this wavering stance and indecent treatment has led the US to reassess its position within the matter. A part of that reassessment, the article states, is the US’s position towards UN recognition of Palestine. According to the article, the US has made moves towards supporting such a decision. In the end, the author states, the US is still strongly supportive of a two-state peace agreement and that the recent actions of Netanyahu have nearly affirmed suspicions of his true intentions never to support such.

Along the same lines as the above New York Times article, this NPR publication seems to reaffirm the questioned current state and strained relationships. Discussing the current state of affairs (the publication was released just before Israel’s election) with several Palestinians, the presenter identifies a mixed outlook for the future, but an agreed upon sour look of the present. As two of his interviewees confirm, the Palestinian government is in dire straights and is not what the country needs to be able to advance its efforts for peace with Israel. While the men interviewed agreed there, their outlook for the future was split in favor of a single-state and two-state solution. The first interviewee called for a single, democratic state, saying that Israel’s advances into Palestine have gone so far that no two-state solution was possible. The second interviewee though, disagreed, and reaffirmed his position for a two-state solution. To reach that though, he stated that the current government needed to be completely overhauled and become a model of democracy. In doing so, he argued, Israel would have no choice but to recognize the State of Palestine.

The here and now is this: Netanyahu has been re-elected; Abbas continues to struggle with Hamas and wavers in his weak corner position; and Hamas is rumored to be in discussion with Israel to make Gaza its own state. So what’s new in this one-state, two-state, no-state solution debacle? In short, not much besides a worsening situation. As the above New York Times article states, relations between long-term allies are actually weakening as all sides continue to dig their heels in further. Abbas, once a revered leader, seems to be faltering in his position and continues to put off further democratic moves he agreed to years earlier. Hamas continues on its path of religious led terror. Netanyahu continues to play games as I think he pursues his ultimate goal: power (I think he doesn’t much care for the situation so long as he continues to reign supreme). And finally, the US is now being forced to re-evaluate its position as it continues to strive for a two-state solution. And yet, all of this, I think, is of little significance. For, politics aside, I think the true heart of the matter lies in the culture and education of the people on both sides of the issues. And on that bombshell, goodnight and see y’all next week!

The Other side of Palestine

After stewing on last week’s entry, I felt disturbed for two main reasons: Netanyahu and his government’s treatment of Palestine, and the one sided entry. As I committed to at the onset of this blog, I felt that I needed to dive deeper into the other side. Hence, for this week, I look into Hamas. According to this BBC News article, Hamas is a relatively new organization that was founded during the first Intifada in 1987. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization was originally chartered to provide aide and social services to Palestinians, and to fight against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. As the article describes, that second resolution came to drastic fronts when Hamas carried out a series of vastly deadly suicide bombings in the mid 1990s. Political practices though, as the article states, did not become prevalent until the mid 2000s when the organization was voted into power in the Gaza strip. Since then, Hamas has led numerous violent attacks on Israel that have led to the mass killings of innocent Palestinians.

Looking towards more recent news, this Atlantic article skips straight to the underlying issue with Hamas. As the article so eloquently states, “While Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made clear that it would rather kill Jews.” Just as the above article stated, this Atlantic piece identifies Hamas as a terrorist organization that has but one goal in mind: the destruction of the Jewish people.

After spending so much time investigating the atrocities levied against the Palestinians by the Israelis, it is easy to gloss over the terrorist organization that is Hamas. Yet in digging through the various articles, I am saddened just the same by the actions that this group partakes in. As evidenced above, Hamas could even be considered worse than the Israelis as this organization would knowingly bring death to its people to further its religious agenda. A far cry from withheld tax reimbursements, or rolling power “outages,” Hamas’ deadly attacks, mixed with their chartered, and continually restated organization goals, are exactly the opposite of what needs to take place for the Palestinian people and their plight towards recognition and fair treatment. Furthermore, just as Israel shall be held accountable for their actions, Hamas should be to.

Unfortunately though, I can not say that I am surprised at Hamas’ rise to power. For in the absence of strong, corruption free, truly democratic leadership, the religious extremists in general are, and have been for recent years, quickly grasping at power. As most of the countries that were a part of the Arab Spring can attest, the rise of religious political powers is steering states in directions far worse than the overthrown governments that preceded them could ever have imagined. In the case of Israel and Palestine, such religious extremism, evidenced on both sides in the form of pro-Jewish legislation or Hamas and its goals, is continuing to degrade any hopes of a peace agreement.

Rocks, Children, and Statehood – King Bibi’s Oppression of the Palestinian People

Throughout my last several blogs, a common thread that strung them together was the various oppressions levied on the Palestinian people by the Israelis. So instead of skirting the issue, I decided to take a closer look into the more recent occurrences that have garnered media attention (please note that by focusing on Israel for this post, I by no means devalue the aggression that certain factions of the Palestinian people have levied upon the Israelis). In this Al Jazeera article, treatment of Palestinian children is highlighted. Known for throwing rocks at the separation wall and Israeli armored trucks, the article states that the children have been facing increasingly worse punishment and persecution. Instead of a night in jail and a fine, as used to be the norm, the article states that the children are now being beaten, coerced into signing statements in languages other than their own, and sentenced to numerous months in jail. Worse still, the authors state, is Netanyahu’s controversial Nationality Bill that currently awaits approval by the Knesset. For in the bill, and through various speeches given by the Prime Minister, Netanyahu has specifically included rock-throwing in his definition of terrorist acts levied against Israel. The future, the article alludes to, is even worse looking for the children of Palestine.

Continuing on the theme of Palestinian oppression, this article dives deeper into Netanyahu’s comments and speeches made in the lead up to his re-election. As the article states, Netanyahu blatantly dismissed the Palestinian people in the remarks he made urging his party supporters to vote. In a reversal of his previous position, Netanyahu declared that he would not allow the formation of a Palestinian state whilst in power. Even further though, as the article states, Netanyahu, on numerous occasions, made direct racial attacks on non-Jewish Israelis in proclaiming that “Arabs” were voting and that, should they win, they would “build a government with the Arab list.”

As time continues to roll by, and no peace agreement is reached, the tensions continue to rise between the two nations. Consequently, Netanyahu’s position on, and treatment of, the Palestinian people continues to worsen. Just a few years ago, Netanyahu proclaimed that he was, in essence, cautiously optimistic that a two-state peace deal could be attained. However, as deals continued to end in stalemates, and his own political outlook on the situation worsened, his entire position on the situation has drastically changed. As evidenced by the increased political moves against the non-Jewish residents of Israel, such as the Nationality Bill, and the outright denial of statehood to Palestine (admittedly, he did step back from this position directly after his re-election; however, such movements can only be suspicious), the oppression of the Palestinian people continues to worsen. Nearly every day, news flashes of withheld tax reimbursements, increased water control measures, and power “outages” scroll across my screen through both Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian Jewish news outlets. As the ending of the second article eludes to, the mis-treatment of the Palestinian people would not be tolerated within any developed nation, yet such actions continue to occur in Israel unabated. With this in mind, I am left to ponder the feasibility of any peace agreement, be it one or two states. For, I cannot remove from my head the mixed feelings of apartheid actions, and the ultimate thought of the oppressed people becoming the oppressors. As the authors of this Wall Street Journal opinion state, the actions of Netanyahu and his regime ” . . . fosters the impression that Israel has moved away from its firm commitment to democracy and sends a message that the full-fledged rights of all its citizens—the 20% of its citizens who are not Jews—are diminished in the eyes of the law.” How then, is peace possible when the status of one people is diminished to second class?

South Africa, Apartheid, and Colonialism

As the rhetoric of Israeli crimes against Palestine continue to intensify and gain worldwide support, connections to South Africa are also gaining strength. Many pundits and political regimes alike are comparing the apartheid regime in South Africa with Israel’s political agenda and regime. One such article referencing this connection, is this Electronic Intifada posting. In this article, the author references a 2009 report released by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC). The HSRC, composed of a team of international parties and funded by the Government of South Africa, investigated the actions of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Working through the internationally recognized definitions, the team identified examples of Israel conducting both such behaviors, apartheid and colonialism, throughout the OPT.

Agreeing that social injustices were being performed, human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund disagreed with the above report and the labeling of such activities as “apartheid.” In this Times of Israel article, author Raphael Ahren interviewed Pogrund and broached the subject of apartheid in Israel. Pogrund, a staunch supporter against apartheid and one of Nelson Mandela’s strongest allies, begins his interview by addressing his involvement in South Africa’s revolution of its apartheid regime. Grossly familiar with the topic then, Pogrund continues on to address the current actions of Israel. While he stated that he did find Israel’s actions atrocious, and did agree with the colonialism label, Pogrund disagreed with the apartheid label for one main reason: intentionality. In this interview, Pogrund argues that Israel’s actions are not apartheidistic as they are not ideologically aiming to discriminate against Palestine.

As I’ve moved through this blog, and the underlying issue of a single or two-state solution, I’ve become increasingly aware of the injustices carried out by both sides. As solutions are thrown about with the same frequency of armed struggles between the two nations, increasingly strong rhetoric is being used to define the actions of the rival state. While I firmly believe that Palestine, and especially Hamas, is a far cry away from being innocent in this debacle, I strongly believe that Israel is continuing to increase both the quantity and scope of injustices placed upon the nation and people of Palestine. It is therefore of no surprise to me that connections between the apartheid regime in South Africa and Israel are becoming more and more prevalent. While my beliefs of colonialism by Israel are shared by many, the claims, and my belief, of apartheid actions are sadly less universal. While I’m glad that many can attest to the severity of injustices brought forth by Israel, the fact that the label is argued about due to technicalities of intentionality are saddening. Yet, as Pogrund points out in his interview, the technicalities of labeling are moot when all sides agree to the basis of actions. “You’re all lying, you’re all doing horrible things, and you’re all pointing the finger of blame at the other. And you’re all to blame. We’re all to blame.” he states. It is this crucial step that must be taken by the leaders of both sides before any such solution, or a simple peace agreement, can be ironed out. So in the end, is Israel an apartheid state? Likely yes. And if you don’t agree with that label, but can agree with the atrocities committed, then we shall set aside our labeling differences and work towards a solution.

The Single State Solution, v2

As mentioned before, the call for a single state solution continues to gather widespread strength. In two articles this week, various advocates for the single state solution address concerns posed by high-level democratic leaders and pose arguments for the formation of a single state. In this Electronic Intifada posting, Ali Abunimah re-posts an open letter signed by a myriad of Israeli Jews calling for the end of the struggle and the formation of a single state. In the letter, the coalition of Jews address the very formation of Israel and the various catastrophes that followed the formation of the Jewish state. Beginning with the Nakba, as they call it (meaning catastrophe), this coalition of peoples identify the ruling members of Israel as Zionist crusaders who forcibly remove and punish the Palestinian peoples. They continue their letter by stating that the only way to do right by both peoples, the Jewish and the Palestinian, is to allow for the Palestinian people to return to their ancestral homes and for the Jewish to recognize their history of strife and allow such to occur.

Agreeing with this letter, this Al Jazeera America article calls for the abandonment of the two-state rhetoric and supports a move for a single state. In this article, the author, Musa al-Gharbi, repeats much of the same arguments that the above Jewish coalition stated: that the Israeli nation continues to barrage the Palestinian people with inhumane treatment and un-called for military attacks. Interestingly though, al-Gharbi recognizes the diminishing power of the PA and calls for that government to relinquish power and authority of the land to Israel; thereby forcing Israel to equitably deal with the Palestinian people.

Regardless of your background, or side you endorse, it is hard to diminish the fact that the two-state solution is dying. After decades of failed peace talks, and leaders who seemingly entrench themselves even further, the continued slaughter of innocent people on both sides demands an answer that the two-state solution simply can no longer address. The simple facts of the case are that Palestinians and Israelis have a right to the ancestral lands that each currently occupies. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to diminish the fact that Israel is indeed focusing in on the banishment of Palestinian people from their lands and the creation of a single, Jewish state. The only recourse then, aside from an all-out war between the two nations, is to find some sort of democratic solution that is a single-state. The rhetoric put forth by al-Gharbi in his Al Jazeera article, while radical at a minimum, offers one way to force the political hands to deal with the situation. While it may bring forth more bloodshed, the same could be said of continuing down the current path of increasingly failing “peace” talks. In the end though, I believe the more realistic solution lies in history itself and the formation of a single state. As mentioned earlier, the connections to South Africa and its struggle with Apartheid are becoming increasingly more strong. So join me next week as I explore this connection and continue my search for a solution.

The Single State

Over the past several years, as the outlook for the two-state solution continued to dwindle, the hushed rumors of a single-state solution have grown louder and gained multi-lateral, world-wide support. In this heated, and admittedly biased, Counterfire article, John Rees strongly calls for a single state solution. Examining the history that led up to last year’s war, Rees states that several key events have undermined the efforts for two states and in his view, negated that very possibility. Beginning with the gradual decline of Arab Nationalism that occurred after its zenith in the middle of the 20th century, Rees states that the nationalist movements that stepped in in the 1970’s began the erosion of the two-state idea. The revolutions of the Arab Spring, he states, further undermined the plight of Political Islam as the realities of the various revolutions, a mixed bag of unguided and semi-successful movements, sinks in. Adding in the continual encroachment of Israeli settlements, and ever-present losses at the negotiating table for the Palestinians, and Rees argues that the only way forward is a single, democratic, and multi-faith state. Again examining history, Rees states that the single-state solution has always been present, but glossed over. During the first world war, he states, the original plans were to pass the whole of Palestine on to democratic rule of the entire lands (a plan later scraped). Furthermore, Rees states, the original campaign of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late ’60s was a single, unified state. It wasn’t until negotiations broke down that the PLO modified their goal. Lastly, Rees points to numerous surveys that all claim that a majority of Palestinians now want a single state.

Agreeing with Rees’ sentiments towards a single-state solution, this Times of Israel article references various polls conducted by the Brookings Institution that all show a continual increase of support for a single state solution by Americans. As referenced in the article, there was a 10% increase in support for a single-state solution, should a two-state solution fail, and more importantly, a good majority of the population polled, 63%, were against the continued settlement of Israelis in the Palestinian territories.

As decades of peace talks continue to fail, the outlook for the two-state solution is looking grim. Both sides, Palestinian and Israeli leaders, are locked in a near stalemate claiming that such a solution will not occur so long as the other side continues some sort of activity (be it continued land grabbing by the Israelis or the simple existence of Hamas in the Gaza Strip). Ironically, as Rees mentioned in his article, the recent revolutions of the Arab Spring have indeed seemed to undermine the efforts of Palestinians seeking their own individual state. As the initial rush of the successful revolutions subsides, the true hardship of the governmental change is taking light. The very struggles that the new leaders face dwindle the hopes of the revolutionaries in Palestine and more importantly, the new governments, in Egypt especially, are beginning to waver in support (the one border crossing on the southern side of the Gaza Strip that leads to Egypt is opening with less and less frequency). Hamas, torn and worn thin through several sieges from Israel, is even beginning to show signs of weakening (and the very fact that two parties rule the two separate lands leaves a two-state solution in shambles with such opposite ruling mantras). Combining all of the above together, the prospects for a two-state solution are indeed dwindling. However, the single-state solution, despite gaining world-wide support, is itself a mixed bag of complications. Who would rule such a state? How would two peoples, though composed of brothers and sisters, overcome years of strife to share a homeland? An interesting correlation has just recently begun to take root as these very questions are posed. South Africa, it seems, may well indeed hold the answer. Yet that will have to wait for another blog entry as I continue to examine the single-state solution.

The Two State Solution

For this week’s entry, I’ve decided to take a closer look into the two-state solution. Unfortunately, many pundits now call for a single state solution so my research was relegated to the earlier part of the 2000’s. What I found was broad, world-wide support for two independent states based upon the borders defined on June 4th, 1967. In this Bloomberg article, the two state solution is called for by President Obama. As the article points out, it was the first time any US President called for such a measure that would, in effect, require Israel to release land holdings back to Palestine. The article continues by delving further into the presenting issues of the agreement (including Israel’s desire for security installations, and the fate of Jerusalem) while also calling question to the Hamas organization. Agreeing in principle with this Bloomberg article, is this translation of a proposed peace agreement originating out of the 2002 Arab Summit. Much like Obama’s call, this Saudi driven peace initiative calls for the relinquishment of Israeli held land while still leaving room for future discussion of Israeli security enforcements. Interestingly though, the initiative calls for Israel to acknowledge the fact that a “just peace is its strategic option as well.” This single statement, while likely the most important, is also the one most widely dismissed.

At the time these calls were made, there was little doubt that a two state solution would not work. The Arab Summit call was made before the Arab Spring and at a time where many of the nations that underwent such dramatic change at the turn of the decade were continuing to “prosper.” Obama’s call, by contrast, was made in October of 2011, directly after the flood of change that came with the Arab Spring. Recognizing the significance of the timing, Obama specifically pointed to the fact that peace must be reached soon. In both of these cases though, separation was believed to be the only way to reach peace.

Separation, however, is a fickle topic. As was evidenced throughout the Arab Spring, the separation of the ruling class of leaders and social elites from the main stream population only led to the brewing of understandable discontent and eventual overthrow. Furthermore, the lines of separation are even more hotly debated. While many of the two state solution supporters believed in the 1967 lines, Israel, to this day, has never, and likely will never, acknowledge the lines. Throughout recent history, and even today, Israel continues to build settlements within both Palestinian areas. Furthermore, the issue of dividing Jerusalem, until recently, was a major area of discontent. So while the idea of separation is agreeable to on paper, the implementation of such brings with it nearly insurmountable issues. Israel’s continual advancement into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip lead directly to Palestine’s unwillingness to negotiate any such two state agreement (the Palestinian Authority will gladly enter into such agreements though as soon as further Israeli encroachments are ceased). Palestine’s government, divided and currently led by Hamas who is labeled as a terrorist organization, is a non-starter for many other proponents of peace talks. It is for these many reasons, that the shift of peace talks have turned to a single state solution. However, that discussion will wait until next week.

The 2014 Conflict

Wrapping up my quick look back at the history of conflict between Palestine and Israel, this week I looked into the summer 2014 war that waged for 50 days. In this BBC News article, the generalities of the summer war, and its precursors, were identified. Stating that the war started with the murder of three Israeli teenagers, the article points out that the conflict quickly escalated to air strikes and rocket attacks. After numerous attempted cease-fires, the 9th agreement, brokered by Egypt, brought a long-awaited, open-ended attempt at peace. The article also touches on subjects relating to the issues at hand, and the overall goals of both sides. The prognosis for the future though, while doubted in this article, was better defined in this Guardian article. Agreeing with the BBC News article, this Guardian piece touches on the same issues that led up to the war and that were currently fought over. However, this Guardian piece went further into the issues not dealt with in the agreement and that they state might be cause for further conflict in the future. Noting that the terms of the deal were nearly identical to the failed agreement reached in 2012, the Guardian piece also noted that key elements Hamas sought (notably an airport, seaport, and release of Palestinian prisoners) were not addressed and were further tabled for one month later. For now though, the article states, the conflict is deemed over and the borders are once again “opened.”

This concluding my very brief look into the history of the conflict, it’s difficult not to form prejudices against Israel. Recognizing that both sides are burdened by their own faults, the continued seclusion and mis-matched aggression of the Israelis cannot go unnoticed. As identified by the BBC News article, almost 29 Palestinians perished for every one Israeli. In Gaza, over 17,000 homes were destroyed by Israeli attacks. Leading up to the war, Gazans were essentially under Israeli military arrest as borders were closed and supplies cut off. In short, the level of control and violence enacted by the Israelis is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Many international organizations and states, including the United States, has declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization. While I cannot argue with the application of this designation, I also can not stand idly by as witness to the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israelis. Therefore, if Hamas is to be labeled a terrorist organization, shouldn’t Israel be labeled such as well?

Camp David II

For this weeks blog, I decided to take a further look into the more recent peace talks and efforts that were made to resolve the issues of the Israeli-Palestinian Issue. Focusing in on the most recent talks held at Camp David in July 2000 by President Clinton, I found two articles that, unplanned, held the same viewpoint of the outcome. In this Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre release, a brief overview of the talks was followed by a quick note of failure in which the Palestinians were blamed. In this New York Times article, a very similar, albeit expanded, account of the talks is offered. According to this article, discussions were proceeding fairly well until the issue of Jerusalem was discussed. It is noted that while both parties entered seeking full control of the religiously important city, it was only Ehud Barak, Israeli Prime Minister, who eventually offered a token of negotiation with the prospect of a Palestinian East Jerusalem. At this point, negotiations reached an impasse and the talks were called off. Barak was praised, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was blamed for the failed talks. Tensions remained high as the parties retired to their respective countries due to the threat of Arafat unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state by September 13th.

Looking back at a point in history, and its associated news media publications, is highly intriguing as we know the outcome of events. In this case, no agreement was made by September 13th and, as we all know, tensions grew to the point of widespread violence. To this day, no peaceful solution is within sight. The more interesting points though, are the slivers of information found in quotes and soundbites that give us a glimmer of the inner workings of the various leaders, their people they represent, and the feelings at the time. In this case, Barak was ousted from office only a few short months later and Arafat, while holding his post longer, was also voted out. Both leaders were condemned for their lack of, and willingness to, negotiate.

As a last exercise, I’ve attempted to classify the two leaders according to their political perspective. I would venture to classify Arafat as a Political Realist. Realizing that strong states need to remain the key actors, I believe that Arafat’s mixed general assessment, and willingness to declare what he believes is his, pushes him to the realist side of politics. Barak, on the other hand, I would classify as a Political Liberal. His more liberal outlook on issues, as well as a broadened horizon of players, keeps him away from the realist side.