Conflict Case Study week begins

Robin Kealy began the proceedings with some background on the negotiations that have gone on in the past and his experiences as consulate general to Jerusalem. In true diplomatic nature he treated the events and issues with care. At the forefront of his argument was what he believed to be the barrier to progress in this conflict: previous attempts to bring the sides together failed because they were not comprehensive in their scope. He highlighted the Oslo Accords as a symbol of this problem, and although both sides were brought together in negotiations, the real intractable issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, and security and borders were not addressed. Mr. Kealy was clear about how he felt successful agreements would be accomplished. Completely “comprehensive negotiations” are absolutely indispensable because (a) each issue is unavoidably linked to each other, and (b) for negotiations to be successful there must be a win-win situation. Each side must believe that any concession “costs him less than what it’s worth to the other side”, or to disentangle this diplomatic jargon, each side must feel the solution is fair. The only way to achieve this win-win situation is by allowing each side to have gains on certain issues and concede on other issues, this successful dynamic can only exist if all the issues are on the table and therefore in order to get real progress completely comprehensive negotiations must take place.

In many ways Mr. Kealy talked about the challenges facing diplomats rather than the issues on the ground today. However, he did succinctly state the  central issues. Who will control the borders in a possible two state solution? What is a viable Palestinian state, and what form will it take? What will become of Jerusalem – can it be shared or divided? (He reminded us that the UN planned to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum in 1947, meaning that it would have been placed under effective United Nations control, a ‘free city’ if you like.) What is the nature of the right of return? He did take some time to investigate this issue. Robin Kealy reminded us of the difference between agreements in principle and agreements that are followed by real changes. While the right of return may be agreed, this does not necessarily mean that all Palestinian refugees must return to their pre-1947 settlements. As with all the issues there are always other options on offer. The metaphor he used was to imagine you have bought a plane ticket. It gives you the right to travel on a particular flight; however, if the flight is overbooked, you might find it more beneficial to find another method of transport. The message that, I feel, Robin Kealy put forward was twofold: firstly, as a former diplomat, that the Israelis and Palestinians might not get exactly what they want, but if we accept this then peace is not far off; and secondly, that we shouldn’t rush into negotiations. As he put it, “a little pre-cooking helps when you come to the dining room”.

The lecture theatre quickly discovered that second speaker David Newman was not a fan of George Bush. I’m envious of the sardonic way he dismissed Bush’s attempts to engineer peace in Israel/Palestine by mocking the fact that Bush only just “discovered the Israel/Palestine conflict 7 years into his presidency”. Aside from this humorous jibe, Mr. Newman had some interesting thoughts on the conflict. He quickly put forward his main two ideas, that today in 2008 “there are no problems with the details” of the conflict and also that a two-state solution is viable. He went on to explain what was the slightly confusing comment “there are no problems with the details”. People, on both sides, have been discussing solutions for years now, he told us. There are numerous solutions to each of the barriers to peace and they have been discussed, analysed and discussed again ad infinitum. Certainly one might agree; however, I felt that stating that the details were not a problem was too absolutist. The real point of Mr. Newman’s statement, however, was what he identified as the true problem facing the peace process: not the details, but rather a lack of political will, guts, and charisma needed to make high-level negotiations begin and work. There is plenty of ‘Track 2’ discourse between Palestinians and Israelis (Track 2 meaning academics and low-level ministers) but concrete peace agreements are made through ‘Track 1’ talks (Track 1 meaning leaders and foreign ministers). Mr. Newman drew on a personal real-world example to help emphasize his point. The ‘green line’ that demarks the Israeli state from Palestinian territories he asserted to be ‘problematic’. It weaves in and out, with enclaves and administrative zones. He believes it to be a ‘recipe for political instability’. A stable border must have contiguous and compact areas of property on either side, he claimed that in many ‘Track 2’ discussions between Israeli and Palestinian cartographers the issue of the West Bank border had been hammered out. If there were real, bilateral ‘Track 1’ discussions, this problem could be solved; in essence, the details were not the problem.

On the issue of the two-state solution, David Newman believed this to be viable in part due to its acceptability to the Israeli public. He rejected the one-state solution, a standpoint that was completely at odds with Ghada Karmi’s views as you will see later. There is a consensus amongst the Israeli public that the two-state solution is what a realistic peace will look like. As evidence, Newman pointed to the fact that two right-wing Israeli politicians – Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon – ran an election campaign and won with a policy that was, in Israeli politics, a radical left position. The reason for this was not because the right wing suddenly changed its ideology but rather it recognised the consensus amongst Israelis that a two-state solution is the only viable solution. Throughout his talk, there was an undercurrent of reality that reassured me. Mr. Newman was well aware of the large role played by domestic opinion and admitted that this posed significant barriers. He reminded us “the level of mutual mistrust and suspicion [between Israelis and Palestinians] is greater than it was 10 years ago”.

Finally speaking was Ghada Karmi. Her style was much different to the other speakers. To some it must have came across as confrontational while others will have viewed it as passionate; regardless. her message and logic came out clearly. She first took time to explain that she disagreed completely with David Newman. She explained that the flaw in his viewpoint was that he assumed equivalence between the Palestinians and Israelis. She described the conflict as colonial and stated that ‘conflict resolution’, as Mr. Newman put it, was impossible between an occupier and the occupied. Because the stronger power will always have the upper hand, any negotiations will inevitably favour him and therefore any agreement will not be satisfactory to the weaker power; a conflict resolution as a result cannot be stable or ‘fair’. The main focus of her argument was that to achieve a peaceful future, we must fully understand the origins of the conflict. The origin of the conflict was, as she identified, Zionism. She described the conflict, once you begin at this starting point, as “easy to understand and inevitable”. Political Zionism requires a Jewish state which is either entirely Jewish or has a large Jewish majority so that it is for all intents and purposes entirely Jewish. When the Zionist movment chose Palestine as their homeland, they encountered a problem in that there were already Palestinians in residence there. In order to maintain a Jewish majority, these Palestinians had to be expelled, removed from Jewish territories – otherwise there would not be a Jewish majority. In addition the Israeli state must ensure that these Palestinians do not return as again this would damage the Jewish majority. Therefore the ‘right of return’ is a non-question, and Israel, under a Zionist ideology cannot accept the return of Palestinians either in principle or reality as it would contradict this Zionist ideology. By understanding this cause of the conflict, we can logically understand the actions of Israel today and why certain issues are extremely intractable. Ghada Karmi categorically stated that there could not be a fair, just solution to this conflict as long as Israel continued to be a politically Zionist state because it would continue to act according to this ideology which is discriminatory and unstable.

She then moved on to address the issue of a two-state solution versus a one-state solution. During his talk, David Newman asked how one would divide a piece of real estate between two contesting peoples. Ghada Karim seized upon this to state that categorically “you can’t divide this territory”. She spoke about ‘fairness’: a two-state solution can exist but it will not be fair to the Palestinians. Even at its best, where Israel would return to pre-1967 borders, the Palestinian territory would constitute around 20% of Palestine and this is unfair. She then addressed the question of why the Palestinians put forward the two-state solution if it is so unfair. The Palestinian leadership in the past and in the present realized that its position was so weak that to avoid total destruction, it would have to accept whatever it could get in order to survive. However, even the one-state solution, she admitted, will not work. There cannot be any peace in any form, she re-iterated, until Israel abandons political Zionism. She ended her talk with an emotive appeal to the audience. She urged us to forget high and mighty talk about high level negotiations and remember the reality on the ground. Remember that the West Bank is “divided into ghettos, barriers, and checkpoints”, that “Gaza is a giant prison, sealed off, surrounded”. And “Israel’s creeping colonization has rendered the two-state solution impossible”. In a direct message to Israel she stated that “if you want security, you won’t get it by killing people”.

If you feel that I have misrepresented any of the views put forward at the event, I sincerely apologise. After the event I, and I hope others too, feel more informed and more confidant about tackling this issue in future. I’m looking forward to the next event on Thursday which focuses on the conflict in Kashmir.