Structure/Agency

A debate in political science consists of the competing viewpoints of "structural" theorists versus "agency" theorists. Those who subscribe to the structural camp assert that history, and thus the continuous creation of history by way of politics, is influenced most importantly by geopolitical factors. It does not so much matter who is leading a country, they will act the same based on exogenous factors. On the other hand, agency theorists contend that people, specifically people in positions of power, are the important drivers of history. Personally, I think that both viewpoints have their merits.

With regards to the ongoing peace process between the nation-state of Israel and the nation of the Palestinians, currently regarded as being more or less stalled, many theorists would maintain that it is a matter of people and ideologies more than a matter of geopolitics. After all, the most contentious geopolitical factor in this process, the one that has contributed to a stalemate in talks more than any other, is control of East Jerusalem. Seeing this "East Jerusalem" for the first time really shocked me. I find it downright absurd how people are willing to stay stubborn and in some cases die for such a meager collection of arid hilltops. In this way, the agency viewpoint begins to show its merits--why would a discussion over such geopolitically irrelevant land continue as it has if not for the ideological and personal traits of the competing parties. Also, in explaining why the peace process has more or less stalled, one can clearly correlate the pro-peace government coalitions of Labor leaders Rabin, Barak, and Olmert with more success in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians than the governments of Likud leaders Begin, Shamir, and Netanyahu. The process has stalled under Netanyahu because he is anti-peace...right?

MK Einat Wilf had a very convincing structural argument explaining the stalled status of the peace process. By her logic, the 1990's were the most ideal time for peace between Israel and its neighbors, including the Palestinians. The Arab countries surrounding Israel had lost their support from the Soviet Union--it seemed that there was either the US's way or the "highway." The peace process has made most progress immediately following the two Intifadas. Now that there is a relative peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and the US's interests are served more by the status quo than by disrupting a stable relationship with Israel during a time of uncertainty in the region, why would Israeli and US leaders commit to a painful reopening of the peace process?

I believe that in discussing this topic, both sides must be considered. The structural factors must be in place, and the right leaders need to have the will and desire to act upon them.

And that’s it. The program is over.

Only our farewell dinner tonight remains. It’s been an incredible, whirlwind, crash course in Israeli politics and society. We’ve scoured the country from the Negev to the Golan, speaking and listening to a broad representation of the Israeli polity. Each had their own take on the state of Israeli affairs and the future of any peace agreement with the Palestinians. These were juxtaposed with our site visits to give us context and impress upon us the meaning and actual size of the dispute. Physically, the dispute is over tiny tracts of land when compared to the actual surface size of Earth. Why it should be so drenched in blood is beyond logical comprehension. But maybe that’s the point? If there is anything that I’ve come away with it is understanding the contradiction of schizophrenia and cold calculating realism that guides daily life in this region. Allow me to explain.

Jerusalem’s mayor is a hard-line secularist who is bending over backwards to accommodate the religious Jewish population while making life increasingly unbearable for the Arab residents. In contrast, the last mayor – who was ultra-orthodox – did everything possible to ensure the status quo balance of religious, secular, and Arab was disturbed as little as possible.

Israelis have no stomach for the peace process, yet they understand that they cannot administer the West Bank indefinitely. Until something or someone forces them to confront their role in the future of the territory, they are content to live and let live, loathe to even discuss the matter. Yet, upon a little bit of prodding, they are energetic in their assessments of the situation and prescription for the solution. And no two Israelis agree on anything, even within in “right” and “left” political camps.

In the rest of the country, the security barrier is hailed for stopping acts of terrorism in the form of suicide bombings, shootings, and stabbings, for over four years now. Outside of the intelligence establishment, no credit is given to the efforts of the Palestinian Authority in their cooperation with Israeli security forces. As a result, most Israelis heartily endorse barrier’s completion. In Jerusalem, where it is largely completed as “the wall,” Jews must balance appreciation of the increased security with the visible scar that the wall creates as it divides Jerusalem de facto despite all of the calls for a “united Jerusalem as the indivisible capital of the Jewish State” heard from politicians.

If anything, the final contradiction that can be gleaned is that for all the contention and claims of holiness, Israeli is actually nothing more than a typical struggling country enjoying a certain amount of success in harsh geographic conditions. It’s challenges geo-politically are in part self-determined. People go about their daily lives trying to afford a decent living. They are concerned with illegal immigration from Africa, a travesty that the issue is even under debate considering how many refugees are fleeing horrible war conditions and genocide. The travesty is that Israel was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust under the mantra of “never forget.” Have we then forgotten that the great powers closed their borders to Jewish immigrants fleeing Nazi persecution in the 1930s?

As a Jew born in Israel I will always cherish this state as my second home. But one thing this trip has shown me is that I am American for all intents and purposes. I have no desire to move back here and deal with this headache day in and day out. I crave the trivialities of life in the U.S., not the constant state of negotiation that embroils this country, down to the minutiae of crossing a street. At least, I say that now. The other thing that I’ve learned on this trip is that the situation on the ground can change in a fleeting moment.

Final Thoughts

Today is the last full day of our seminar in Israel.  I have spent my time reviewing my notes from our many site visits and lectures.  My research focus for the seminar was to examine the ill-fated Roadmap to Peace in the Middle East proposed by George W. Bush in 2003.  Before our departure I submitted to Professor Ziv, my research proposal and outline.  This proposal was the result of thorough preliminary examination of the topic.  As the Seminar unfolded, however, the shape of my research proposal began to shift.  It is not that I was mistaken in my previous direction, it is simply that without being in Israel and participating in the lectures and site visits I would have only had access to a glimpse of the information I needed to truly examine the failings of Bush's Roadmap to Peace.  While reevaluating my research proposal thrusts me back to the beginning, I am excited to tackle this project with a greater depth of knowledge surrounding the topic than I ever could have hoped for had I not participated in this Seminar.  There is truly no substitute to examining your subject face to face.  I am grateful to have had this opportunity!

- Clare Gallaher

Culture

When I first touched down in Tel Aviv and walked out of the airport lobby, I immediately remembered the date palms. I had been to Israel once before, on a family trip when I was eight years old. We came the summer of my brother’s bar-mitzvah, as part of a large tour group of at least 40 people. I definitely enjoyed myself thoroughly on this trip, and certainly appreciated Israel. However if you’d asked me at the time what my favorite parts of the trip were, my answer would probably have been playing Gameboy on the tour bus, hotel swimming pools, and falafel, in no particular order. Nonetheless, when I first glimpsed the date trees in front of Ben Gurion airport, a flood of other memories came back to me. Unlike other times when I’ve travelled to a foreign country, even if I have been there before as well, such as Mexico, I never have a sensory connection with that place like I realize I have with Israel.

I definitely feel like this trip has been less an academic experience than a personal exploration of my own Jewish identity. That is not to say that this trip has been anything but absolutely fantastic in terms of expanding my knowledge of the country, it’s relationship to the United States, and its own struggle for peace. What I mean is that as a Jew, especially a secular Jew, my own experience here takes on an added dimension. Having taken Professor Ziv’s course on U.S.-Israel Relations in the spring, I would definitely say I was more knowledgeable than most Americans on the topic of this abroad program. But I could have read a dozen books on Israeli culture and still not been prepared for the cultural experience of this trip. Proud yet diverse, brash yet warm, assertive and unapologetic, it is the culture of Israel that is often forgotten in American discussions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. Zionism means such different things for different people, especially amongst Jews.

I have known for a while that I have deeply held, yet very subtly complicated disdain for ultra-religious people, namely those of my own religion and ethnicity. This stems mostly from experiences of my life, experiences that I will not elaborate on here. However, seeing how difficult the peace process is in a society as vibrant as Israel’s, and seeing how much further complicated this is when a large current of public opinion is driven by ideology rather than rationality and self-interest, I cannot help but despair for the future of the State of Israel and the spirit of Zionism. And therein lies the beauty of Israeli culture—forged by the despair of thousands of years of Jewish oppression, and more than 60 years as a state without real peace, Israelis have learned to soldier on, despite the clouds on the horizon and despite the vast differences of opinion within their own society. And, my personal favorite part of Israeli culture, they do this without apology and without resorting to euphemism. Coming to understand this culture has been fascinating and rewarding, and I know I will continue to evolve my life-long relationship with this culture.

Pictures from the protest outside the Knesset

June 6, 2012

Knesset Visit: A Lesson in Israeli Politics

This week the group had the unique opportunity to meet with three members of Israel’s Parliament, or the Knesset.  According to an intern who led us on a tour of the building, Knesset in Hebrew translates to “assembly” or “to assemble.”  On Tuesday we met with MK Daniel Ben-Simon of Israel’s Labor Party and MK Sheik Ibrahim Sarsour of Ra’am-Ta’al, one of Israel’s Arab parties.  Additionally, we had the chance to meet with MK Dr. Einat Wilf, a former Labor Party member who last year joined the Independence Party.

As Professor Ziv had discussed in an earlier lecture, Israeli politics have been aligned historically along right and left ideologies, with those on the right falling into the nationalist or “hawkish” camp, and those on the left favoring peace or compromise with the Palestinians.  From 1948-1977, the Labor Party ran the government; however, in 1977, the first Likud (right wing) government came to power, and since then, with a couple of exceptions, the right has continued to lead.  Over the last decade, a particularly interesting paradox has occurred.  Despite the Labor Party’s near collapse following the second intifada and the government’s rightward electoral shift, the population has shifted its position leftward, moderating its views.  Fewer Israelis are voting according to party, rather they focus more on the issues or the person running for office. 

Our Knesset visit reinforced this point.  As MK Ben-Simon explained, the Labor Party has shifted away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is instead focusing on economic and social issues, ranging from the rising cost of living and increasing wage gap amongst Israelis to the search for equality in the Jewish population, mainly regarding the issue of the 20 percent of the ultra-orthodox population claiming exemption from the country’s mandatory military service.  In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ben-Simon believes that the conflict cannot be resolved without the U.S. who he says has been “criminally silent” on this issue since Obama has come to office. 

MK Sheik Ibrahim Sarsour pressed upon us the importance of his party’s dedication to mercy, graciousness and peace in the political process.  His constituents are focused on the rights of minorities in Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the Arab Spring might affect the geopolitics of the Middle East. 

Like MK Ben-Simon, MK Einat Wilf is focusing most of her efforts on domestic issues – particularly education, economics and women’s issues.  Her take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved quite interesting.  She claims that the conflict is not about peace or a matter of territory as is often debated, rather it is a result of the continued rejection of the Zionist idea and the existence of a Jewish state. 

While each MK had his/her own diverging viewpoints, one thing they all shared was a frankness and candor that is sadly missing from American politics – there is no spin in Israel, which I think was refreshing for our group to experience. 

These visits not only provided the group with invaluable insight into the inner-workings of the Israeli government, but also furthered our understanding of just how diverse and complex the Israeli public and its political challenges are – what some of us might have thought were black and white issues are in fact varied shades of gray.  

The Druze Community

During one of our trips to the North our group met with the Druze Community. The Druze are found
primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, emerging during the 11th century from Ismailism.
The Druze get their title from a individual Druze by the name of Anushtak'in ad-Darazi, who was later considered a heretic and casted out of the community.

Very little is known about their actual religious beliefs as these are kept secret. When Druze reach a certain age (though I can't remember the exact age) they must choose whether to be religious or not. Those who choose religion continue the secret practice of the faith and adhere to specific dress codes. Both men and women are stressed as being equal in this community and as such, both genders can take roles as religious leaders. A Druze can change their mind about being religious or not once more after they make their initial decision. A Druze can also only marry a Druze and one cannot convert to be a Druze. If an individual marries outside of the community, they are no longer considered a Druze and must leave.

Though a religious minority in Israel and Arabic speaking, the Druze communities are very loyal to whatever government is occupying them and work hard to be incorporated into that society. Druze identify themselves as Israeli and even served in the Israeli Defense Forces on a volunteer basis before this was entered into law.

After being educated about their culture, the Druze family whose house were we guests at served us a beautiful and enormous lunch. You can see for yourself below.

[edit]

Meeting with Independence (now Kadima-Likud) MK Einat Wilf

After a refreshing and largely non-political lecture on the importance of water in the Middle East by Prof. Eran Feitelson, we made our way to the Israeli Knesset. Unbeknownst to us we stumbled upon a protest! It was quite a lively protest. We saw two arrests and were also confronted by an apocalyptic gentleman from San Francisco who insisted the Global Revolution is upon us. The protest itself was largely made up of orthodox Jews that were showcasing their distaste for the Israeli government's recent decision to remove five houses in a Jewish settlement from Palestinian land. An interesting exchange occurred between an Israeli police officer and an orthodox woman berating the officer for arresting a fellow Jew. "I care about the country just as much as you do," he said.

We left the protest and entered the Knesset to meet with MK Einat Wilf. When PM Netanyahu collaborated with the Kadima party, Wilf was one of the MKs to join. She described her politics as having gradually shifted from left to right, particularly on the issue of Palestinians. In regards to this issue, MK Wilf suggested that if a path to peace makes itself available, Israel should follow it, but it is her opinion that Palestinians have had plenty of opportunities to create a Palestinian state. Palestinians, she said, don't just want a Palestinian state; they also want to reverse the creation of Israel. MK's grim view spoke largely to the greater Arab-Israeli conflict in that the real problem lies in the historical fact that Arabs have been against a Jewish state in the Middle East. Although I disagreed with her on several points she made, MK Wilf was impressive, collected, and spoke eloquently to us with great respect. She made a point to address all of us and I think our group overwhelmingly enjoyed hearing her speak.

Our tour guide through the Knesset was a French woman named Eliana who presented a viewpoint on Israel that was different from many of the others we've met on this trip. Eliana left France for Israel because she believed all Jews should return to Israel after having been evicted 2,000 years ago. Eliana went on to discuss how Algerians in France don't want to be successful and how they should look to her Polish father as an example of how to be good. I'm not sure how her train of thought was constructed because it was largely irrelevant to us in any way, but it presented an opportunity for me to disagree with someone in French.

As the trip wraps up, I feel lucky to have experienced this conflict zone firsthand. As an American of Lebanese ancestry, I've often times been hounded with the stories of the experiences of my family in regards to Israel and I've had limited opportunities to form my own firsthand opinion. Now that I've been here, I have a better grasp of the conflict from the inside. Unfortunately, I feel more hopeless for peace in the region and I admire those who dedicate their careers to finding an end to this conflict.

Gaining Perspective

As we are approaching the end of the seminar several themes stand out.  The Israeli/Palestinian conflict runs deep and it is hard to fully understand all the complexities, furthermore, Israel needs the help of the international community to resolve this conflict, and beyond help resolving it, they need help gathering the will to push for peace.  Speaker after speaker expounded upon the fact that Israelis will not push for peace without pressure from the international community, especially the US.

While the above themes were similar in every lecture, the lecturers themselves could not have been more diverse.  Our tour guide said for every two Israelis there are three opinions... We have witnessed this national conversation first hand.  In the last two days especially, we met with three very different Knesset members who stretched across the spectrum regarding their opinions of peace process and varied greatly in what issues they felt their political parties should focus on in the elections.

In the picture above we are learning about the ancient City of David from our tour guide Avi.  Just one of the many site visits we have participated in that provided the historical context which frames modern Israeli views.

- Clare Gallaher

Post From Tracey Livingston

Our group explored Hezekiah's Tunnel in the City of David and we chose to go through the "wet" tunnel... This meant that we walked through natural spring water which was typically 6" deep but reached 3 feet at certain points in the hike.  The photo is of us with our tour guide, Avi, after we finished the underground hike.

Meeting with MK Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour

I can’t believe that the first week of my Israel program is over. It’s been everything I expected and more after over six years away from the country of my birth. It’s also the first time that I’ve returned to the country wearing “political science glasses.” This seems strange to say since the entire place is one big roiling political cauldron. More has changed than I dared imagined; in how developed the country is now, and by the altered approach to politics here. One of the main purposes in coming to Israel this summer is to explore what has happened to the peace movement since the abandonment of the Oslo process by Israelis and Palestinians. The peace process is no longer the defining issue in Israeli politics. Indications are that it may be as low as sixth in priority for Israelis more concerned with economic security, social parity and well-being, and the threat (real or exaggerated) posed by Iran’s nuclear development. No one seems to care about the peace process anymore. What I’ve noticed concurrent to this is the increasing integration of lands conquered by Israel in the June 1967 Six Day War into the fabric of Israeli society.

            The first indication I received of this was on the drive down to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem on May 24, the first day of the program. Rather than taking Highway 1, the main route between the two cities which winds its way as it connects the Judean Mountains to the Plain of Sharon, my parents and I took the alternate “Modi’in Highway,” so named because it exits Jerusalem from the North and curves around to terminate in the city of Modi’in. (I should mention here that I actually arrived in country ten days early to better acclimate to the country, recover from jet lag, reacquaint myself with my family here, and spend a few days with my parents.) For those not familiar with this route, as I had not been, it cuts straight across the West Bank. It is a modern divided four-lane highway. There are no signposts along the way demarcating when one has entered or exited the territory, only a checkpoint at its exit point from the West Bank – one of only a handful of checkpoints that Israelis must contend with when entering or exiting the Territories. The only indications are derived from the locational signs noting the Palestinian towns and cities, and the Israeli settlements along the way. On the ground, the term “settlements” becomes an esoteric concept. These Israeli towns and cities are all connected to this highway. They are integrated into Israel’s infrastructure. They are slowly being woven into the fabric of Israeli sovereignty, while simultaneously being bluntly separated by fence and wall from Palestinian neighbors. For stretches the highway runs right along walled portions of the security barrier, obscuring the Palestinian settlements on the other side, reinforcing the foreignness of “the other” to Israelis.

            And it seems that as long as Israelis feel secure and relatively stable financially, they are content to forget the difficulties faced by their Palestinian neighbors. Gaza is hardly discussed anymore in the news. Israelis are slowly returning to Palestinian-run business alongside highways, but don’t dare enter into towns and cities; both because it is illegal for Israelis to enter the territories and because Israelis are taught to fear “the (potential) terrorists.” With absence for concern for the Palestinians in everyday life, talk of peace has evaporated like the water from the Dead Sea. I came here with the working assumption that the cause of this national pathos was a sort of “peace weariness” after years of discussions and negotiations with little to show, a sort of flipside to “war weariness.” I’m already questioning whether this is the cause or yet another symptom of something much deeper after having toured Jaffa, Jerusalem, Gilo, and Har Homa, and the Golan Heights; scratching the surface of Haifa, Nazareth, and Tiberias; speaking with representatives of different faiths and communities such as the Ahmadis, Bedouin, and Ilm alWahidiyyun (Druze). Should I alter my original question? Perhaps it isn’t only Israeli Jews who no longer care for peace? Maybe the more appropriate investigations should be, “Does anyone in the Eastern Mediterranean care about peace?” and “With no suicide attacks in Israel in over four years, is Israel already experiencing peace? And is it sustainable?”

Entry 2 from Tracey Livingston

Professor Ziv giving a lecture at Hebrew University

Today professor Guy Ziv gave a lecture to our group at Hebrew University. He summarized a few recurring themes around the Arab-Israeli conflict that we’ve picked up from our guest lectures and during our guided tours. Professor Ziv provided a foundation on the workings of the Israeli parliament and the numerous political parties that it encompasses. We also discussed major historical turning points for the country and shifts it caused within the government. The 1967 war, the first and second intifada, and the transfers of territory between Israel and its neighboring countries are a few of these events that were covered.

The group discussed the importance of US presidents in the peace process. While no president has succeeded in creating a solution to the conflict, the US has played the role of mediator to conversations between Israel and the Palestinians. The US has also been a prominent figure for peace agreements between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. The US’s political power is seen as an essential aspect if Israel and Palestine were to reach a solution to the conflict.

An interesting part of the lecture was the section on “myths” associated with the conflict. One myth was that Israel has “no partner” on the Palestinian side. The idea of “no partner” means that there isn’t a sound Palestinian government or leadership that Israel can work with. There is the PLO in the West Bank and Hamas, a terrorist organization, in Gaza. Israel and the international community won’t negotiate with Hamas, which leaves Israel without a clear Palestinian leadership or partner. Professor Ziv stated that this is a myth because there are Palestinian leaders Israel can talk to. Abbas is seen as a weak leader by Israel but is still a liable option. Abu Maszen is also a viable option for a Palestinian leader.

Another myth that got the group talking was that it is possible for a “one state solution.” Professor Ziv said that if a 2-state doesn’t happen and 1 state was to exist, then there would be dire consequences and ethnic slaughter would likely arise rather than peace. Essentially, a one state solution would equate to no peace. Students talked about the illegal settlements that are being built by Israeli’s while the country waits for the “right conditions” for a two-state solution. Students felt settlements were in direct opposition to a peace agreement since they claim territory for Israel that might not be given up for a two-state solution. If Israel was serious about peace then the government should seriously consider a freeze on all settlements.

The lecture was a welcome opening for the group to begin discussing and asking questions around the information we received from our guest speakers, site-visits, and informational tours. Having Professor Ziv give a foundation on the Israeli government system in conjunction with history helped me better understand the current state of politics within the country. 

Coffee and dessert

Roladin Bakery & Cafe

Bauhaus Buildings of Tel Aviv

Today marked the group's second visit to Tel Aviv since arriving in Israel, but this time our interactions were focused more on the business area of this large city. Many of the buildings here are white and constructed in a very modern style. Our professor, Dr. Ziv, explained that these houses, referred to as Bauhaus style buildings, were built by German Jewish immigrants in the 1930's who came to Israel after the rise of the Nazis.

The Bauhaus buildings adapted the modern trends in architecture at the time with the cultural and climactic conditions of Tel Aviv. These buildings tend to incorporate narrow windows for cooling and air flow and tend to be built on pillars to promote cooling, but also to provide areas for children to play. Additionally, several trees and plants are planted in the yard to provide shade, but also to symbolize the community's "roots" in the country. 

Tel Aviv has the largest concentration of these buildings than any other city and has thus been deemed a world cultural heritage site. Below are some examples of these buildings:

Haaretz EIC: Israelis Don't Care About the Palestinian Conflict

I think the group would agree that this seminar has proven invaluable in terms of learning about the complexities of Israel's history, the challenges it faces in terms of domestic and foreign policy, and the tribal nature of the country that make it unique from almost any other place.  Today we met with Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Haaretz, the world's leading English-language newspaper for Israeli and Middle East analysis.  

Benn graciously took time out of his busy schedule to discuss a number of topics with the group -- from the makeup of Israel's domestic politics to the situation with Iran and U.S.-Israeli relations. One thing that we found particularly interesting was Benn's statement that the Israeli people, particularly those living in Tel Aviv, don't care about the Palestinian conflict anymore.  Benn attributed this to the relative calm that Israelis have experienced following the end of the second intifada in 2005 as well as the decrease in suicide terrorist bombings and lack of external pressure for peace.  According to Benn, Israelis are more concerned with the West, especially the United States, and the relationship between the two countries.  In terms of domestic politics, the main topics on people's minds focus mainly on social issues such as the dramatic flux of African refugees into Israel and the "problems of the rich," such as the rising cost of living.  Israel's economy barely skipped a beat during the global economic recession and unemployment hovers at 6.7%.  

What will make Israelis return to the peace process - a third intifada?  According to many Israeli political experts we've met with to date, a third intifada is not only inevitable but can be expected sooner rather than later.  In the meantime, as Benn mentioned, Israelis will continue to capitalize on the convenience of the status quo to focus on other issues.  

Highlights from our weekend trip to Haifa and Northern Israel

Ba'hai Gardens and Shrine, Haifa

Tea time with a Druze community near Haifa.

Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth

AU Group checks out Tiberias and the Sea of Galilee

Which way to Jerusalem?

Visiting a Golan Heights bunker used in the 1967 and Yom Kippur Wars

Views of Syria from the Golan Heights

Intersection of Israeli, Syrian and Jordanian borders

The Israeli/Israeli Conflict

The last few days have been busy!  We have filled our time with excursions to the religious/political sites in Jerusalem.  In the picture above, Ann and I touch the stone on which Jesus' body was prepared for burial.  I am not a religious person, yet when stuffed into the church of the Holy Sepulcher with hundreds of passionate pilgrims; when standing at the Western Wall with the Orthodox Jews; and when wandering on the Temple Mount among Muslims, you can feel how passionate these very different groups of people are about their religious places in Jerusalem.  I feel that coming to Israel is the only way I could have truly felt this passion, which has fueled so much conflict.

Furthermore, we have witnessed first hand the “Israeli/Israeli conflict,” as our multiple tour guides and experts with whom we have met have all had very different opinions on the political situation in Israel.  This was most apparent during our morning tour with Ben from Ir Amim, a very left wing organization.  Our usual tour guide Avi was so opposed to some of Ben's comments he interjected often.  Through this exchange we were able to see the type of debate that takes place among Israelis themselves.  This debate has contributed, no doubt, to the Israel/Palestinian stalmate of today.  Both Ben and Avi agreed, the support of the international community will be needed to help Israelis overcome their differences and reach a solution with Palestine, and both agreed that this help cannot come soon enough.

- Clare Gallaher

This is a photo from the creatively named "Warren's Shaft" in the City of David, which is a community south of the old city of Jerusalem. What is interesting about the City of David is it is actually biblical Jerusalem, with the Temple Mount to its North. Warren's Shaft acted as a new water passage for Jerusalem in order to protect the local water supply from being poisoned by invaders.

The tunnel was narrow and filled with water that at some points reached below our waists. It's obviously not in use anymore, but it was a lot of fun walking through. Most importantly, the history that came along with the excursion to the City of David gave us a good background in understanding the geographical and historical significance of Jerusalem that is relevant even today.

Entry from Tracey Livingston

The seminar has been a great experience so far. I’ll do my best to summarize a few key points I picked up. The tour of Jaffa during the beginning of the seminar provided an informative foundation and historical summary to the land that Israel sits on. Our tour guide Avi went through a brief 4,000 year history and explored the varying empires that ruled over time. After the overview we toured important sites in Jaffa and made our way to adjacent neighborhoods for further historical context.

The meeting at the US embassy with David Berns was a way for our group to hear about US-Israeli relations and a chance to ask questions around our paper topics. Lucky for us we had a chance to meet and shake hands with Ambassador Shapiro as well. The Ambassador wished us the best in our stay in Israel and hoped that one of us will find the final solution to the conflict (we were asked to contact him if we did).

We arrived in Jerusalem on Monday and hit the ground running. Our morning lecture on Tuesday with Daniel Siedemann was extremely informative and wonderfully candid. Mr. Siedemann has a strong background in US-Israeli relations, works closely with the US government and various bureaus, and is an expert background on the city of Jerusalem. The following is a paraphrase of one of the points he mentioned regarding a two-state solution to the conflict: Palestinians want to push Israel to the sea; Israeli’s want to push Palestinians to Jordan. Unfortunately, these options aren’t available at the moment so we will try for a two-state solution.

Thursday we had a full day of lectures, history, and site seeing with Ben from an Israeli organization Ir Amim. If I had to describe the day in one sentence I would say, “I witnessed a small glimpse of the Israeli-Israeli conflict.” What I mean by this is that our tour guide, Avi, and Ben, from Ir Amim have two very important but also very different perspectives on the arab-Israeli conflict. Ben spoke from a more left-wing political perspective and Avi spoke from a more centrist-right perspective. Both individuals went back and forth between each other in front of the group which provided me with a better understanding of the politics within Israel, hence the “Israel-Israeli conflict”. From my personal point of view, witnessing this take place was exactly what I expected the seminar to provide and I’m glad that this happened early on so I can take all of the information, facts, and perspectives with me as our group continues learning. 

Walking the Ramparts in Old Jerusalem

At the security wall near Abu Dis