At the time that I made my decision to come to Israel, I
was still deeply rooted in my own naivety about the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. It was an ignorance that I acknowledged, that I loathed and that I
desperately hoped to dismiss. Growing up in a Jewish home and with a Jewish
background, I understood the necessity for a Jewish state. Yet, my numerous
friends from the Middle East would not allow me to formulate any biases. They
made it inevitable that I understand the conflict as a multifold issue. Thus, I
understood the arguments and I could see the multiple viewpoints. Yet, I still
felt helplessly naïve, unable to formulate my own opinions about the pressing
conflict.
I hoped that by studying the issue in the Middle East,
upon hearing native opinions and foreign speakers, I would come to have a
better sense of my own opinions. Yet, by being here I’ve realized that the
issue never simplifies and my political and emotional ties are still strung in
various directions. I found that Professor Avraham Sela at the Truman Institute
for Peace explained the situation well when he said we are not dealing with a
normal conflict. He illustrated the dilemma through his phrase “burden of
history,” highlighting the major disasters and memories of pain and loss that
both sides have been carrying for hundreds of years. Thus, I still remain
caught in the middle of the conflict. I think it is essential to have a Jewish
state, a place where Jews can create a majority and find security from foreign
pressures. Yet, I am also weary of whether we deserve Palestine as our own. Is
it our right to displace natives from a land that was once theirs? And once
again, I realize these arguments simply scratch the surface of the complex
issue.
While I struggle to contemplate my own feelings regarding
the differing sides, I do know that I am a strong advocate for peace. I feel as
though this peace will come in the most efficient and justifiable manor if both
sides negotiate on a two-state agreement. Professor Avraham Sela explained that
even today the majority of the Israeli public supports two states. Yet, I found
it enlightening that he believes that many don’t understand exactly what this
means. Many Israelis are willing to have two independent states, but can’t
actually fathom retracting the settlements or giving up Jerusalem. In order to
actually create peace, it seems that the both the Israeli and Palestinian
populations must have a better understanding of what this solution means. I
personally think the final solution will only come if based on a mutual
compromise. Many times in the past, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have come
close to settling a peace agreement. However, each time they pull away again,
hopeful that they will someday find a better compromise. Unfortunately, as
Avraham Sela clarified, “time works against the process.” He questions if we
will get to a point where it is too late for peace?
In the final paragraph of the assigned selection from
Ilan Peleg and Dov Wasman’s book, the authors provide an all-encompassing
solution to the problem.
“The Jews have a right to
national self-determination in Israel (but not hegemony); the Palestinians have
a right to national self-determination in a Palestinian state, and those
members of the Palestinian nation who are citizens of Israel have a right to
recognition as a national minority, cultural autonomy, and full individual
equality. Anything less than this will not bring peace and reconciliation. We
can only hope this will be enough.”
While I accept this solution, and applaud its acknowledgement
of all sides of the situation, it is hard to not think that the two populations
will never be able to accept and come to terms with an agreement of this sort.
No comments:
Post a Comment