The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict of 2011

William Vazquez

Professor Craig

World Politics 001H

Submission Date: October 14, 2011

The international community has been abuzz in the last few weeks over the pertinent issue of Palestinian statehood. Questions have been flying around as to how the UN will respond to this bid, what the US will do in light of its peacekeeping tendencies as well as its relationship with Israel, and what this will mean for the parties involved. Especially on the American University campus, separate events have been building up the anxiety that hangs over this dilemma. Even during the first week of school, in my ignorance of the issue, I happened to make an “Israel שׁonk” tie-dye T-shirt, and now I have refrained from wearing it so as to not spark an issue. I also had the opportunity to hear both former Major General Daniel Rothschild of Israel speak on September 22^nd and Mr. Mouin Rabbani, who represented the views of Palestine, speak on September 29^th, 2011. The issues that each of them focused on were not quite the same, but ultimately came down to what will occur, how the Arab Spring plays in, and what role the US plays in all of this.

A 30-year IDF veteran, Rothschild served in the Intelligence Corps, as well as assistant to the IDF chief of staff. He also served as the deputy director of Military Intelligence during the first Gulf War in 1991. Rothschild served as the government coordinator in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which granted him a central role in Israel's negotiations with Jordan, as well as in key peace talks with the Palestinians. (haaretz) During his talk, Can the Peace Process be Saved?, he focused on the situation in the Middle East and its characteristics, all centering on the question of whether or not peace can be achieved at all. Mr. Rothschild believed that the Middle East is becoming intensely radical. He noted how in the past, he had sat with an important member of Hamas for almost eight hours discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation. This member had stated that his people wanted to be recognized as the sole sovereign people of Palestine; if Palestinian statehood was achieved, the government would be built in a pyramidal structure with the executive on top. Democracy would slowly but surely work up from the bottom.

General Rothschild seemed to have little reservation in his opinions, openly stating his beliefs. He strongly stands by his idea that everyone anywhere believes that government should provide 100 % of service to 100% of the people, something that I think we can all agree with. The former general also stated that the people of Egypt knew how to make a revolution but not much about making a government – the idea of political parties did not work for them. He fears that the social and economic situation in the Middle East is declining, sparking this tendency toward radical action. He also believes that Egypt will most likely become an Islamic republic.

The general noted that many nations throughout the Middle East and Africa often relied on the US, but now they are losing faith in the US because of Iran. Since Iran is becoming more of a hegemon as time goes on, the general fears that that if a threat of the undermining of the Israeli government by Iran comes, Israel will have no one to rely on. He believes the main problem in the peace talks is the lack of strong leaders at the moment for any group, which is also a big problem he has with the UN. He believes that in the end, the success of the peace process depends on Israeli and Palestinian leaders getting together to discuss the peace agreements one-on-one.

General Rothschild’s own words were kept short so as to allow more time for questions from the audience. Following his final statement, the first question dealt with whether the US moderation is needed for the peace talks. He believed so, stating that the US has done it very successfully thus far. He believes that the leaders of the involved groups are capable of managing negotiations themselves though. One person wondered why Palestinian statehood was a threat to Israel, to which the general responded that it was not. If it occurs, however, the two states would eventually go into the International Court system seeking compensation for past acts of aggression, destruction, and much more. The issue of the IDF arming Israeli settlers and the possibility of those settlers attacking Palestinians was brought up, to which he stated that the army should keep everyone in check. He also hoped that if Palestine was successful in its bid that this would not result in demonstrations and marches on Israel. If it did, new nonlethal weapons have been developed to deal with this situation.

In mentioning a recent protest in Israel for socioeconomic change and its possible connection with the Arab Spring, Rothschild stated that the only connection is through the use of social networking. He is very fond of this phenomenon and the nonviolent nature of is; he is not sure if the protesters will be totally successful. One questioner wondered if the current government would survive the UN decision under so much pressure, to which the general responded that it should. He said that if terrorist attacks in the West Bank persist even after Israeli movement away from there, a cooperative force of Palestinians and Israelis as well as a possible international force would work to protect the people. If there is a known threat and no one was dealing with it, he firmly believed that Israel would take care of it. As to whether or not the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a good chance of becoming a single democratic unit, he believed that the polar ideological gap between the two ruling groups would never allow this. He believed that “public opinion in the Islamic world is shaped by leaders.” He claimed that in the Arab world, attacking Israel is the way to gain support.

Mouin Rabbani is a contributing Editor of Middle East Report and has published and commented widely on Palestinian affairs and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was a Senior Analyst of the Middle East with the International Crisis Group. Previously he worked as Palestine Director of the Palestinian American Research Centre. He is Co-Editor of Jadaliyya Ezine. (jadaliyya) Although his talk also dealt with this pertinent issue, he was not given the same amount of attention, a very prominent location, or a microphone. As a result, much of his talk was very difficult to hear, although his “lacking” tone (as one of my colleagues perceived it) did little to help as well.

Mr. Rabbani started his talk a little differently, drawing back to the inauguration of President Obama in January of 2009. He stated that the Palestinian administration invested a great amount of hope in the new president thanks to his rhetoric, unlike former presidents Clinton and Bush. Obama had stated that he recognized the Israeli-Palestinian issue as very important for peace in the Middle East. His call for Israel’s withdrawal from expansionist policies slowed down the settlement expansion that had been driving Palestinians further and further away. This also made Palestinian leaders feel more comfortable to go back to negotiating, but since these negotiations seemed to go nowhere, Palestine left again. Mr. Rabbani also noted that release of the Palestinian papers, which showed that its leaders were willing to concede almost everything and anything in the peace talks.

Mr. Rabbani believed that the ouster of President Mubarak in Egypt was very significant because the new Egyptian leadership will most likely not advocate for Israel among Middle Eastern states as it has done in the past since the Camp David Accords. It has been a timeless advocate for Arab-Israeli harmonization and now this is falling apart. On a side note relating to this, the Israeli embassy in Giza was recently attached by a Cairo mob. Egyptian “Policemen did little as demonstrators with hammers battered down” a protective wall around the embassy. While this was occurring, many of the top men “in Egypt’s interim military government were unavailable to take calls from Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, until Barack Obama intervened directly with them.” (Economist)

Another impact of the Arab Spring was that Palestinian leaders took public opinion into account more often. On top of that, they sought help from the international community. Rabbani believed that the bid for statehood is bound to fail with at least one veto from the U.S. or elsewhere. Even so, he states that all Palestinians want to break the U.S. monopoly on the negotiations and get a world response on it. This includes assistance from the International Criminal Court for many offenses against the people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He thought that Israel’s problems with other nations will make the situation much better for Palestine, stating that there is a resumption of Arabic support for Palestine that had been evaporating. He wondered if the U.S. will let anyone else act as a partial mediator and does not think that President Obama will ever do anything about the situation. As for the bid coming out at this time, it seemed only appropriate going along with the Arab Spring since negotiations never seemed to work. Rabbani also stated that if Israel does not act fast, it will start to lose its advantage in negotiations. He thought that the American public had been served very poorly by the media because of falsified or doctored information. He also believes that the Palestinian people will not have an uprising because they expect a veto anyway.

From an objective standpoint, just looking at the way each speaker presented himself in his manner said quite a lot about the situation. Here are two men representing opposing sides of an issue that has been going on for thousands of years. Each of their peoples has suffered through many terrible events in history and has sought a home to call their own for far too long. The fact that this situation has never been settled is a blatant crack in the view of liberalism’s effectiveness. Negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been going on for decades now and have yet to produce a solid peace. This is not to say that each side is not trying, but considering Mr. Rabbani’s pessimistic tone as compared to General Rothschild’s confident manner, it does not seem like the balance is exactly even. It seems that Rabbani, speaking for the Palestinian people, was just tired of waiting for the peaceful negotiation process to work when it never produced a situation that was quite right for the Palestinian people. On top of that, his focus on the removal of the U.S. as the mediator brings up a good point: how can Israel and Palestine come to a solid agreement that works for the two of them if there is always outside influence edging the discussion one way or another? This is where Rothschild point on having strictly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations alone seems to be an effective method.

Despite this seemingly effective means of negotiation, I cannot help but feel that perhaps the general was not the best advocate for peace. Unlike Mr. Rabbani, his military experience makes me wonder if this leaves a tendency toward a more realist perspective rather than liberalist. As such, I feel as though he feels secure in the might of Israel and its ability to stay strong in its position and withstand this bid. But a discussion of relations between two peoples and two areas is not so simple anymore – not with the outside influence of the surrounding world. While Israel has been able to hold itself effectively since its birth in1948, the events of the Arab Spring will surely put more pressure on it. If real success and peace is to be achieved, what is the best strategy to take? Can following liberalistic policies really benefit both groups if negotiations have yet to succeed? Even though the U.S. has been involved in the negotiations for decades now, with its own troubles in the Middle East, is it helping or hindering the peace process?

Ultimately both talks were incredibly informative as to the positions of either side and have helped to show the importance of the current bid in the UN. While the effects of the decision are unforeseen, I think it would be better for the members of the Security Council to truly consider the ramifications of their decision. Just how much disappointment can the Palestinian people take before the radical tendencies of the changing Middle East affect them as well? No matter what the decision is, the most important question remains: can peace ever truly be achieved?

Works Cited

"Major General (res.) Danny Rothschild - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News."Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .

"Contributors." Jadaliyya. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. .

"Feeling the heat of isolation." The Economist Sept. 17th, 2011: 45. Print