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