2008 Woodie Awards
Visitors speak on Palestine, Israel conflicts
Guests from Israel and Palestine participated in an on-campus colloquium April 6-8, during which they shared stories of their callings to "live in peace," despite the conflict in the Holy Land between their peoples.
Karim Ali, Genevieve Holmes and Holly Butcher
Issue date: 4/15/05 Section: News
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
The Lilly Grant sponsors the Guilford Initiative on Faith and Practice, which funded the Colloquium. "The Lilly Grant Foundation gives grant money to organizations to promote religious discussions in higher education settings," said senior and co-organizer Kat Spangler.
The Colloquium included Israeli philosophy professors Avishai Margalit, Yehuda Gellman, and Edna Ullmann-Margalit, as well as Palestinian producer and translator Raja Zeedani, and philosophy professors Sari Nusseibeh, Said Zeedani.
Malino organized the colloquium, which consisted of four public presentations, two small group discussions, and six focused sessions,. It strove to stimulate discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"Since 1997, my wife Jane and I have led work study-trips to the Middle East and over the years have developed a pattern of working at the Ramallah Quaker School studying the conflict, making connections with Israelis and Palestinians involved in the search for peace," said Campus Ministry Coordinator Max Carter. "Over there, it's very difficult for something like this (to happen) because Israelis are forbidden by law to go into the West Bank."
The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews began around the turn of the twentieth century. Although these two groups have different religions, religious differences are not the cause of the conflict. It is a struggle over land.
Until 1948, the area that both groups claimed was known internationally as Palestine. But following the war of 1948-49, this land was divided into three parts: the state of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River) and the Gaza Strip.
Jewish claims to this land are based on the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants and on Jews' need for a haven from European anti-Semitism.
Palestinian Arabs' claims to the land are based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years and the fact that they represented the demographic majority. They do not believe that they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe's crimes against them.
Israel constructed a wall of separation in July 2003, the most drastic change to Jerusalem since 1967. Thousands of Palestinians had to flee the suburbs and towns for fear of losing access to work, schools and hospitals. Israel claims the obstruction is essential to prevent attacks. But from the Palestinian perspective, it could potentially exile 90,000 Palestinians with Jerusalem identity cards. There is also fear that this might cause the Palestinians to be pushed out of Jerusalem forever.
APRIL 6
At 8:15 p.m. the Colloquium commenced with the speakers introducing themselves.
Raja Zeedani began by saying, "My head is an Israeli one. My heart is a Palestinian one." She described life as a Palestinian living under Israeli sovereignty.
Mrs. Zeedani grew up in the West Bank and moved to Jerusalem in 1987. There, she worked at the Hyatt Regency Hotel alongside Jewish Mexicans. At the hotel she learned that it was possible to live together with Jews, an experience she was not familiar with.
"The moment you start working with people, you share," she said, referring to the difficulties of working alongside Israelis.
Jerusalem resident Yehuda Gellman came to Guilford to "speak of peace and attempt not to trade horror stories with horror stories." Gellman, the only Jew at the event wearing a yarmulke, embraced his faith openly and spoke of peace.
"Peace must come through three things: one, appeal to self-interest, two, appeal to self-interest, and three, appeal to self-interest," he said.
According to Gellman, the conflict has "three concentric circles: local, neighboring states, seven to eight (of which) attacked Israel, and Israel and the (entire) Islamic world."
Said Zeedani started his speech by saying, "The romantics of the nineteenth century believe that poets and artists are prophets who can change the world ... (but) politicians are the ones who do, or can, change the world. We are all political animals. Only the degree of involvement is different."
Mr. Zeedani stressed the core equality of all people, but noted that physicality, wealth, economy, and ethnic background can create inequality.
Edna Ullmann-Margalit began her presentation with adjectives. She described herself as an academic, peacenik, mother, and Jerusalem-born Israeli Jew. Her sabbatical from the Hebrew University drew her to Berlin during World War II, while the Berlin wall existed. This experience foreshadowed later opinions involving Jerusalem's division.
Ullmann-Margalit introduced two organizations to the audience that promote peace in the Middle East: the New Israel Fund, which raises money to give grants to social change organizations, and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which provides safety measures beyond the border of Israel.
The next speaker, Sari Nusseibeh, began by saying, "All Arabs are male chauvinists, but my family was named after a woman." Nusseibeh grew up in Jerusalem, terrified by the Orthodox Jews he witnessed from his garden alongside a span of empty land he referred to as "No-Man's Land."
In 1967, Nusseibeh conquered his fear and crossed No-Man's Land into Jewish territory. "It was a journey into one's fear, demons, and imagination," he said. "This needs to be done by all in order to reach reconciliation."
Avishai Margalit concluded the introductions. In 1939, because of rioting, Margalit was not born in a hospital.
"I find it to be personal. There's a tremendous amount of intimacy," he said explaining the conflict and rioting as a metaphor. "This is like a bad marriage that needs a decent divorce, then, perhaps we can build something new."
"When you looked at their styles, they really took different approaches," said Malino.
"(Mr. Zeedani) was ready to make a detailed philosophical argument; (Nusseibeh) clearly had a charm and an easy speaking manner; (Mrs. Zeedani) had a marvelous style and was the one non-academician, but (was) very clear and forthright, with a sense that everything came from personal experience. (Margalit) drew from his own experience as well as his extraordinary book learning. (Gellman) was religious in the traditional sense. (Ullmann-Margalit) spoke beautifully about (her) position on the wall controversy."
APRIL 7
At 10:00 a.m., Mrs. Zeedani, Nusseibeh, and Gellman all met with students to discuss their experiences and biases concerning the conflict.
"I thought it was simply madness," said Nusseibeh, who wrote an article published in both Hebrew and Arabic criticizing the fighting's absurdity. Together with an ex-Israeli naval officer, he worked to get signatures of Palestinians and Israelis tired of the fighting and wanting peace.
Half a million signatures later, Nusseibeh now walks in his homeland accompanied by bodyguards due to life-threatening attacks from students and citizens against the petition.
Gellman, the next speaker, discussed the wall controversy: "I think the wall is one of the greatest contributions to peace because it prevents terrorism. Walls can be knocked down. They do not have to be permanent."
After Gellman finished speaking, Mrs. Zeedani touched critically on 1987's roadblocks. She witnessed 36 women delivering babies during the roadblocks.
Nusseibeh took a different position, saying: "I think the road blocks were a good things. But my anger is about the fact that it took us four years to actually decide that we should negotiate. Some people say force works, but I don't agree with that."
At 2:10 p.m., a second general presentation began with the four male panelists debating the political situation and future of Palestine and Israel.
Mr. Zeedani spoke first, categorizing the resolution process into a series of assumptions. The first assumption is that one must stop viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a single issue with the outcome of one winner and one loser.
Next, one must recognize that the conflict is not a clash between morals and religions, but rooted in a deep political conflict between two groups in control of one land. "It is a conflict between colonizer and colonized," Zeedani said.
Several things stand in the way of resolution, according to Zeedani. Primarily it is Islamic and ultra-Jew fundamentalism. Each side needs to compromise: "Palestine should suspend all acts of violence and Israel should give (up Palestinian) land(s)," he said.
Margalit, next in line, discussed the two-state solution. He said there are two futures for the land. If Israeli settlers fail to evacuate the Gaza Strip, the future is closed and there is the possibility that peace will never happen. But, if evacuation transpires, then the future is open for peace.
The third speaker, Nusseibeh, reinforced that "a strategic solution cannot come without compromise on both sides."
In conclusion, Gellman spoke about the wall and its contribution to today's peace because it diminishes the Palestinian option for terror. His words were pessimistic as he pointed out that both sides are fueled by fantasies that wish the other would "disappear."
His solution is for Israel to acknowledge the need for homes for Palestinian refugees and give up sovereignty on Temple Mount. The Palestinians, in turn, must accept Israeli presence and adopt non-violence.
At 7:30 p.m., the speakers hosted a panel discussion in Dana auditorium focusing on the challenges involved with living for peace in a holy land. The discussion revolved around obstacles in bringing about peace on levels both specific and abstract to each speaker's life.
Through a series of questions, facilitator Malino evoked critical and emotional responses from the speakers.
Malino's first question of whether violence in the region helped expedite the peace process received divided responses.
"Enough is enough," responded Nusseibeh, arguing that violence from the Palestinian militants and harsh measures from the Israeli army was a terrible thing. Violence, according to him, was detrimental to bringing about peace in the region, especially to the Palestinian people.
Margalit corroborated Nusseibeh's arguments. Alluding to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, he said that democracy and peace is not a justification for war. He argued that Palestinians are much worse now than four years ago since the Intifada's inception.
The Intifada is a group of people opposed to Israeli oppression. The first Intifada began Dec. 8, 1987, when the Israeli army killed four Palestinian men waiting at a checkpoint to get into the Gaza Strip.
On Sept. 28, 2000, the second Intifada started when 2000 Israeli soldiers directed by Sharon, destroyed the Al Aqsa Mosque and killed another four people.
Mr. Zeedani also believed that violence deliberately targeting civilians falls in line with the definition of terrorism. But "justified" violence, targeting military institutions, may provide more urgency to a solution.
"What cannot be achieved by force, can be achieved by more force," said Ullmann-Margalit, speaking of an old Middle Eastern saying and regional perceptions. However, she believed that non-violent protests would have been more effective than their violent counterparts.
When considering issues of the wall, Gellman suggested that people think more of maintaining safety than commuting convenience.
However, Ullmann-Margalit voiced opposition to the wall's "evil construct," saying that the wall segregates, discriminates and further divides a people already in discord. She believed that the wall gives a sense of security but is not worth the price to pay. She was also skeptical of the wall's deterring prowess.
"When people are determined, they will find a way to fight for their freedom or what they believe is their freedom," said Ullmann-Margalit. "The Middle East has its rules, and there is nothing more permanent than a temporary security measure."
Palestinian panelists discussed the difficulty of people imprisoned by the security wall. Nusseibeh outlined the aesthetically grotesque and restricting impositions of the wall on Palestinian residents. The massive concrete barriers reduce the share of land on the Palestinian side.
APRIL 8
Discussions concerning Occidentalism, media coverage of the conflict, and the politics and ethics in Israeli Jews and Palestinians took place at 8:30 a.m. In order to participate, students had to pre-register and read assigned articles.
In Frank Science library, Margalit and Nusseibeh led the discussion about Occidentalism. The occident is western culture. According to Margalit, "Occidentalism was formed by humiliation."
"The west brings with it a new period of barbarous type: arrogant and power-mongers," said Margalit.
In the Alumni house, The Guilfordian co-sponsored the breakfast session focusing on the conflict's media coverage. Mrs. Zeedani and Ullmann-Margalit led the discussion.
Zeedani spoke about her experience as a translator for the Palestine Press Services and producer at the Middle East Broadcasting Company. She distinguished Palestine from Israel, saying that Israelis live in a democracy where freedom of speech is accepted. However, her station covered simple stories lacking journalistic freedom.
Ullmann-Margalit generally spoke of the Israeli coverage as extensive and fair. Both women conferred about the accuracy of various news sources.
The two speakers also mentioned the use of propaganda on television. Each side displays "terrorist" acts of the other state, fueling more anger.
In the Worth House II, Mr. Zeedani and Gellman discussed discrimination against Palestinians, Israeli government policies and civil rights.
"We live in a state for the Jews," said Zeedani, arguing that Israeli policies gave priority to its Jewish residents, and in the process neglected Palestinian rights.
He explained that Palestinians were only semi-citizens in Israel.
"Formally we are equal citizens, but practically we are much less than that," said Zeedani, alluding to discrimination against the Palestinian people in Israel.
He believes that the unequal distribution of employment and other socio-economic factors has led to the economic marginalization of the Palestinian people, 50 percent of whom live in poverty.
Zeedani explained that the special rights granted to Israelis are on the basis of serving in the Israeli army. Veterans enjoy lower mortgages and other special allowances.
"His facts are right," said Gellman. "His situation is a badge of shame for Israel. There is pervasive discrimination. I won't argue with that."
He pointed out that even though Arabic is an official language in Israel and Palestinians hold many prominent socio-economic positions, unwritten discrimination still undermines Palestinian liberties. These liberties include statehood and citizenship among others.
"The root here is an antagonism, part of a fear that encompasses the entire complex of Arab, Muslim and Jewish people."
He believed that Palestinian violence would do nothing to resolve the conflict. Without calming the situation, Israel's public wouldn't be receptive to Palestinian plight.
"The issue is not a historical act, but current human suffering, which must be changed immediately," said Gellman.
Religion was the topic of the fourth presentation, which took place at 12:30 p.m. on the same day at the New Garden Friends Meeting.
Gellman began with a speech. "Religious identities are uniting, especially in the West," he said. "The challenge is retaining both conceptions: rooted religious identity and non-compromising spiritual commonality. Self location equals religious identification."
He concluded with a prayer he found in a synagogue comparing the Godly versus the Godless. "The true Saint does not complain about the dark but adds light. The true Saint does not complain about the evil but adds the good."
Nusseibeh disagreed. "You can't find guidance in religious affiliations and religious claims. We are better off without these religions," he said. "Why transcend humanity? Look at each other with the eyes of human beings."
He described how he took his sons to a mosque but fled soon after so that his sons wouldn't "be defiled by a religious spokesman."
The colloquium concluded at 3 p.m. with Said Zeedani leading a small group discussion. The conversation stemmed from Zeedani's experiences as a Palestinian.
"(The colloquium) directly connects with Guilford's core values and the community outside," said Malino. "But it also relates indirectly through plain old philosophy and political science. Some aspects directly related to principled problem solving, and others had a more indirect connection."
"What (Malino) has done here ought to be used as a model to continue to make the dynamic of learning open to the community," said Carter. "What was most exciting is as the Colloquium progressed, we got more and more students to come. Students were incorporated into this brilliantly. (They were) asked to lead discussions, take charge. It showed what a dynamic experience learning can be. This is what college is about, learning."
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Shalom Freedman
posted 3/21/08 @ 8:47 AM EST
From reading the summary comments I do not believe enough was said here about a certain assymetry in the situation. i.e. that the Jews of Israel have been striving to make peace, have offered ways towards peace throughout the history of the conflict. (Continued…)
Post a Comment