Author: Jonathan Perlin
Title: Muslim vs. Non-Muslim views on Zionism
About the
Author:
Keywords: Islam, foreign policy, Israel, Zionism, Muslims, Jews, two-state
solution, Gaza, west bank, Palestine,
Abstract: Today there is constant debate over US foreign policy in the Middle
East. One important aspect of this debate centers around the issue of
Israel’s existence as a state, and the nature of that state. More
specifically the question that will be examined asks how Muslim
opinions will differ from non-Muslims when concerning Zionism. I
hypothesize that Muslim opinions on the subject will not only be much
stronger than non-Muslim opinions but they will also identify much
more strongly with the Palestinian minority due to the fact that many
Palestinians are Muslims. Conversely, non-Muslim opinions will
probably tend to be more neutral towards the issue due to either lack of
personal sentiment towards the issue or due to not being well informed.
As a distinct category, Jewish people would be expected to respond as
strongly as Muslims, except in favor of Israel, because of a strong
personal connection to the issue. Overall this paper will try to discover
if this hypothesis holds when applied to students at the University of
Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. It will do so by examining a crosssection of all of these groups of students and based on the results of
these examinations it will try to provide a better general idea about how
this specific group group of students views this issue and if the
hypothesis is proven true or false. This examination will go beyond a
simple vote of support for or against the State of Israel, but look at
levels of support for different versions of that State.
Question: How does Muslim opinion on Zionism differ from those of Jewish
people and people of other differing faiths and what level of approval or
disapproval is observed among these groups?
Interview Questions:
1) What is the extent of your knowledge concerning the current
situation in the Middle East?
2) How do you feel about the original establishment of the state of
Israel?
3) How do you define Zionism?
4) Why do you think the US has always shown such stringent support of
Israel and do you agree with their support?
5) Are you familiar with Gaza crisis of 2009 and if so do you believe
Israel’s response to Hamas’ bombings was justified.
6) Should any portion of a future Palestinian State consist of sections of
the West Bank?
7) Should a future Palestinian State include any part of East Jerusalem?
8) What should be Israel’s policy on future and existing West Bank
Settlements?
9) Do you think a two state solution is possible and if so, how?
10) How should the United States play a part in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict?
Data (Field The one paper that I found particularly interesting discussed the
Notes): Muslim sentiments towards America’s Middle Eastern foreign policy
and in particular it’s relationship with Israel. There seemed to be a very
narrow viewpoint of America’s foreign policy when applied to Muslims.
However, there was one student, Osama, who took a very interesting
viewpoint that was very refreshing to read. He expressed distaste
towards the US’s foreign policy, however he expressed something that
should be fairly obvious, “Osama proposed that all parties involved
should engage in political talks rather than military combat.” This
seems like a sentiment that should be fairly obvious, however it wasn’t
explicitly stated by any of the other interviewees in this paper.
It was also interesting (but not surprising) how passionate all of the
interviewees about the US’s foreign policy and how differently some of
them expressed this passion. In this scenario Osama once again proved
to be the expression. For the most part the other interviewees gave a
sense that their passion was somewhat blind and that their support of
Muslims around the world was in direct conflict with their American
identity. Osama however conveyed a sense of passion through his
careful diction and although he fervently supports all Muslims around
the world he still identifies as an American because he recognizes how
unique of a situation it is to have some of the freedoms that Americans
have.
Overall, the paper did a reasonably effective job at analyzing the effects
of US foreign policy on UIUC Muslim students’ feelings about how they
identify themselves as Americans and to determine if they feel alienated
within their own country. It also provided some insights into how
differently Muslim students at one university can view a situation.
meeting with Professor Rana
-possible focus on Israeli Independence Day and the controversy on the
quad
-look at comments on moodle-differences due to knowledge of region,
social relationships, political relationships, etc…
-maintain strong focus in paper
Moshe interview
Growing up in Israel
Entered teen year in 1992-Rabin
Peace process moving forward quickly
Hopeful times
People on both sides who weren’t ready to move forward
Hamas and other terrorists pushing suicide bombings
Violent protests against Rabin-assasinated in 1995
Halt in progress
Moving more backwards than forwards in second intafada
Operation caste lead
2009- understanding of status quo that isn’t useful to either side
believes both sides waiting for leadership change
serving
served in ghaza strip guarding Israeli settlements
contact with Palestinian civilians
nice, warm people, just living their daily lives like anyone else
several situations in which there were attacks in which defense was
required
understand the population better and challenges with terrorist
organizations
US supports
Share common values
Both western, democratic countries
Long history of receiving immigrants
Talking about pluralism and forming communities through
immigration
Creates a lot of similarity between countries and cultures
Emphasis on free speech
Value of human life
Benefits from technological, military improvements to point they are
relying on one another
That’s a very neutral question
Ghaza in 2009
Israel has been enduring for 8 years of kasam rockets being fired
Thousands of missiles shot that doesn’t distinguish between civilians
and military personnel
Work was mainly to fight military combatants
In dense areas of Ghaza, there are unintentional civilian casualties
Most important point- Israeli shoots a terrorist that does not have a
uniform, gun can be taken and counted as civilian
Portrayed as Israel harming civilians intentionally
If Hamas combatant is combating IDF and is holding a Molotov bottle,
officer from Israeli force needs to decide if it is ok to fire against the
person
Officer has to decide if the person is standing close enough to throw it
and hit the soldiers
If he has thrown bottle, the soldiers aren’t allowed to shoot combatant
because he is no longer a threat
Extent to which Israeli soldiers are trying to maintain moral values
while fighting terror
These facts not told in international media, bc they are procedures, not
news
Is a 2 state solution is possible
I sure hope so
Not in the next couple of years
Palestinian pop needs to be educated that Israel is here to stay
Some extremists in Israel need to understand that Israel is a democratic
Jewish country
Let go of some of the territory that was occupied
Needs leadership change
Settlements
Exchange of territory
Cannot clear the larger blocks of settlements
Done in 2005 when pulled out of Ghaza
Extremely painful process for a country
Rather give back other pieces of land than to do that again
Road that connects ghaza and west bank
Some land in negev possibly
According to international law some places are Israeli property
Jerusalem, and Golan heights
Security fence
Suicide bombings should have never happened
If they did not there would have been no need for a security fence
2001-2004 more than 1000 civilians killed by suicide bombers
suicide bombing decreased 96%, casualties 99%
even though suffering in Palestinian territory, losing land isn’t as
important as losing life
legislates to save lives, then property
removing fence would take a new process of trust building
more stuff
Israeli culture based on promoting value of human life before all else
Shown many times in past
Given away land for peace in Jordan and Egypt
Meeting with a different value system with the Palestinians
Agree on common set of values
Staying in ones corner
Palestinian
Different values in middle east than western world
More honor based system
Israeli leadership understood Palestinians and vice-versa
Educated leadership
Omar interview
Knowledge of region
Eastern part-Dammam, Saudi Arabia
One of largest oil plants in nation
Sources/biases
Aralriyadh(paper)-popular paper
Expresses many opinions some believe peace impossible and others do
not
Cnn in Arabic and English
Cbs and nbc
Al jazeera- many reporters in gaza and west bank
Known as a biased channel
Many things in common with NY times
Analysis very different
Peace agreements- some believe in peace some do not, and some
leave it to audience
Ny timesMany optimistic and pessimistic
Establishment of the state of Israel
Believes in peace and 2 state solution, Israeli government and PA
should coexist and try to reach solution
US support of Israel
Believes they support coexistent
One side is focused on more in many cases
Cannot separate a conflict
Growing up presented
Facts for most part
Never asked if certain events should have happened
Big background about origins or Judaism and Christianity and Islam
Education isn’t shaped to influence opinions just to educate
Approaching peace from realistic perspective
Hamas is isolated from other side
Supposed to be more open minded
Needs a compromising solution
Ghaza crisis
Was more aggressive than it should have been
No justice in the response
Believes it slows peace agreement
Not in the military so cannot really say
Relinquish some of the things that you want for the sake of other goals
Two state solution
Not really any choice
Security fence
Damage control
Possibly some other creative solution that could have solved it with less
damages
Jerusalem
Holy city on both sides
Should be access to it
Everyone should have access otherwise will cause even further
controversy and maybe be manage by a third party
Palestinian or Israeli
Connections to Palestinian side
Common religion, call one another brothers
Same region, language, culture
Politics come and go and change all the time, it is not permanent
Role of US
One of the most powerful countries
Speed up the agreements
Should be a priority issue
Conflict is a source problem- other problems could be solved indirectly
Nonviolence movements are extremely important
Hope to see it soon
If both sides want peace why is there none
People believe in something but the leader that represents them does
not share all of the same views
Need to think for everyone and who you are representing and solve
their most pressing demands
Don’t be selfish
Someone who can shape the opinions or directions of argument is the
problem
Culture, religion
Common food, clothing, way one speaks, mindset (style of thinking)
Family unit is tighter in middle east- more connected
Share of possessions
Independence valued over everything in US but besides that family is
extremely central to existence in middle east
Until marriage supposed to live in home and receive support
Good things and bad things from both cultures
Everyone represents themselves- minority does not govern the majority
they do not represent the will of everyone else from a certain region
Government acts against terrorism in Saudi Arabia
Many organizations that shape with bias the news they report
Ridiculous to believe everything you see
Need to use your own rational mind in order to evaluate the news and
form your own opinions
Speaker-Israeli Sergeant (thoughts post-presentation)
-used personal stories throughout entire presentation
-extremely emotional, seemed to be on verge of tears at a couple points
-excellent speaker/debater
-even though his presentation was all personal stories, his main way of
refuting arguments was through facts and figures
-seemed to know every single anti-Israel question that would be asked
an already knew how to best refute them
-anger when Jewish student used religion almost like an excuse to
express anti-Israel sentiment
-speaker said he had no problem with his sentiments, only that he
prefaced them with the fact that he was Jewish
-interesting how he sought to receive more pro-Israel sentiment
-used ethos, tried to humanize the soldiers of the IDF through personal
stories of his time spent with other soldiers
Israel Day on the Quad(post-observation thoughts)
-extremely close in proximity
-contrast in emotions
-celebration on one side, anger and frustration on the other
-“free falafel” vs “free Palestine” and “End the Occupation”
- talking to students on Palestinian side
-a bit hesitant
-quick to refute the fact that the conflict had anything to do with Arab
vs. Jewish origins
-at the end of discussion one did admit that Arabs would tend to
support Palestine while Jews would support Israel
-seemed extremely tense when walking in between the two groups
-a member of the Palestinian side took some blue bead necklaces from
Israel side and twisted them into handcuffs
Discuss How do Arab and Jewish opinions differ on Zionism, to what extent,
(Final and what are the origins of these differences?
Paper):
Occupation, security fence, West Bank settlements, Kasam rockets, and
suicide bombings; when someone thinks of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the state of Israel as a whole these are just some of the
thoughts that come to mind. There is no doubt that this issue stirs
strong emotions in many, but why is this? Does it come about only
because of knowledge about the conflict, or are there more complicated
roots to these opinions? Also, will Jewish people identify more strongly
with the Israelis because of their common religion and culture?
Likewise, will Arab people identify more strongly with Palestinians
because the vast majority shares a common religion and culture? These
are the questions that I sought out to answer when interviewing
students here at the U of I.
Zionism is defined as the following by Merriam Webster’s online
dictionary. “An international movement originally for the establishment
of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for
the support of modern Israel.” Essentially it is promotion of the modern
state of Israel. I hypothesized that because of their strong connection to
Israelis, Jewish people will strongly support the state of Israel while
Arabs will not due to their strong connection to Palestinians. It would
be foolish however to believe that the opinions of these subjects would
be so simply categorized when one considers the complexity of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believe that the reasons for these beliefs on
both sides will not be based solely on facts, but rather because of the
personal connection they feel towards the region and the people that
inhabit it.
Recently, on Israeli Independence Day there was a celebration
organized by the Illini Hillel on the Quad during the day. There was
music, falafel, and some socializing. No more than twenty feet away
there was a group of about 20 Arab students at a time who were
protesting this celebration through signs and chants displaying their
clear dismay at current policies of Israel. Students would chant, “End
the Occupation” and “Free Palestine.” Many Jewish students were
clearly unsettled that other students were demonstrating against the
country for which they share a strong connection. These Jewish
students chanted back, “Free Falafel” trying to diminish the other
student’s chants. When one walked through the middle of these two
groups one could clearly sense the tension that existed. This further
proves how much passion each of these groups invests in the support of
Israel and Palestine respectively.
I decided to approach some of the individuals on the pro-Palestinian
side and try to set up some interviews. After explaining my project to
some of the individuals they immediately had problems with my
hypothesis. They vehemently denied that their Arab origin had anything
to do with their political beliefs and that the issue of Israel and
Palestine was purely a political issue and not an Arab and Jewish issue.
Although these individuals declined an interview, the sentiment they
expressed is a very important one. It suggests that many in this group
probably felt as though their origins did not have an affect on how they
felt about the issue, but rather their carefully formulated political
opinions governed how they felt about it. The question remains
however, is it naive to believe that one’s personal connections do not in
any way affect one’s political opinion?
Attending a couple of events at the Cohen Center for Jewish Life has
also helped to shed some light on the opinions of some Jews who have
gained very interesting perspectives on the conflict. The first of these
was a sergeant in the Israeli Defense Force who shared stories about his
experiences and gave his perspective on the conflict as a soldier. In
several parts of this presentation the sergeant let the audience see how
passionate he was about the subject. The most striking of these
moments was when an audience member started speaking about being
a descendent of a Holocaust survivor, and then went on to criticize the
speaker about some of the points he made during his speech. The
sergeant immediately challenged the student for trying to use his
Jewish background as a justification for disagreeing with him. He went
on to say that his Jewish background should not have anything to do
with how he felt about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that he
should use facts to justify his points. To his credit, the sergeant
addressed all of the issues the questioner raised that tried to invalidate
the points he made during his speech. He attempted to use factually
based arguments, although some were through his perspective as an
Israeli soldier. A good example of this came when he talked about the
Ghaza crisis of 2009. When a student question how he could justify
over 1,000 Palestinians civilian casualties with the majority of them
being women and children, he cited the fact that in all other major
military operations that involved Arab enemy combatants the civilian
casualties were exponentially higher with similar percentages in terms
of the casualties of women and children. Rather than trying to use an
argument that would try to use his culture or heritage to justify the
Israeli response, he used facts and compared this situation to other
military operations around the world. However, he shared the same
sentiment as the Arab students whom I spoke with on the quad.
Religious or racial identification of someone should not be a basis for
one’s beliefs on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The sergeant did not go
so far as to say that the conflict was purely a political one, although he
also did not refute this point. This vagueness could express a personal
uncertainty that may be shared by others who are also trying to evaluate
this difficult situation.
My pool of interviewees consisted of two subjects who are students at
the University of Illinois, and both of who are international students.
The following subjects are students from the U of I and follow the IRB
protocol when it comes to interviewing subjects. Also, these interviews
and the entire paper is an EUI project.
Omar
Omar is from the eastern part of Saudia Arabia, from Dammam. He
says it is a big city, with one of the larger oil companies in the country
located there. Omar came to the states for an intensive English program
so that he can study here for the next four years. However, he stressed
that he wants to immerse himself in the culture as much as possible
because he wants to learn about the people as well as the language.
We talked a little bit about his life growing up in Saudi Arabia. He tries
to keep up to date with the news by reading and watching from several
sources including the New York Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, and
Aralriyadh (his favorite Saudi based paper). When talking about the
biases he sees in the news he recognizes that many sources contain
biases and promote agendas, but he doesn’t necessarily blame these
sources. “There are many organizations that try to shape opinions
through biases in their reports,” he said, “but it would be ridiculous to
believe everything you see. You need to use your own rational mind in
order to evaluate the news and form your own opinions.” Although it
seems like a fairly obvious sentiment, it is still a very important one.
Along the same lines, when we discussed his high school history lessons
he felt as though they usually just talked about facts and not opinions or
judgments. He went on to explain that the lessons never seemed to
analyze particular events and evaluate if these events were just. This
seemed to be quite a departure from the education I received in high
school where injustices in historical events were often questioned,
debated, and discussed in the classroom.
After we went over this background information, we started to talk
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He seemed a little bit
uncomfortable to talk to me about the subject, although he remained
direct and straightforward in all of our subsequent discussions about
the conflict. The first question I posed to him concerned the original
establishment of the state of Israel and if it was justified. He said there
was no point in looking back on the past and thinking about what
should have happened or not happened, but rather to look to find a
solution to the conflict at hand. He emphasized the fact that the Israeli
government and the Palestinian authority need to try for peace.
It was clear Omar did not want to come out and identify with a side, but
not because he was uncomfortable about doing so. Rather, it seemed he
would rather talk about the peace agreements that have so long eluded
that region of the world.
We next discussed the United States and what role they should be
playing in the conflict and if he believes that the US shows considerable
favor towards one side. Omar had a very interesting take on this point.
He did not believe that the US showed considerable favor towards one
side or the other but rather that one side of its support receives more
attention from the media. Considering the fact that there is usually a
general perception that the US provides more support for Israel than
might be desirable. It was very interesting to find someone who had
such an open perspective. Along the same lines Omar expressed several
strong opinions about what role the US needs to take in facilitating
peace between Israel and Palestine. “As one of the most powerful
countries in the world, there is a responsibility to speed up peace
agreements,” said Omar. He goes on to say that this should be a priority
because it is the source of many other problems that exist in the region
and other problems could be solved indirectly.
When I mentioned the Israeli response to Kasam rockets being fired
from Ghaza, Omar immediately seemed a bit uncomfortable about
answering. He believed that the Israeli response to the Kasam rocket
firings was more aggressive than it should have been. He saw it as a
counterproductive measure in the peace process and used the following
analogy to express how he felt about the response. “If I take five dollars
from you, then you should take five dollars back from me, not ten or
twenty.”
When we spoke about Jerusalem and in which state it should reside in
any peace solution Omar seemed very unsure about how to answer. He
clearly believes both sides should have access to the city but his
hesitation in this response is an answer itself. This is because both
Muslims and Jews have very strong religious ties to the city but a
sharing of the city would create greater tension between the two groups.
Throughout the entire interview Omar avoided siding specifically with
Israel or Palestine, so I asked him directly which side of the line he falls
on. He said that his Muslim identity lent him to side with the
Palestinians. A sharing of language, religion, and culture makes him
feel a strong personal connection to the Palestinian people. He said,
“ politics come and go and change all the time, it is not permanent like
cultural connections are.”
Culturally, Omar pointed out, Israel and Palestine tend to be very
different from one another because Palestinians lend themselves to
more of a Middle Eastern culture while Israel tends to see itself as a
“westernized nation.” Omar pointed out that among these cultures he
believes that everyone just wants peace. However, he also said that
sometimes-political leadership looks past the best interest of its people
and uses positions of power for their own selfish gain. This, he believes
is currently the biggest barrier to peace.
At the end of our talk, I asked Omar if there was anything he wished to
add to his already very detailed thoughts. Though it doesn’t hold a huge
meaning in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Omar felt it important to
make the point that simply because some Muslim extremists are
terrorists, it does not mean Muslims as a group are terrorists. Though
this is widely known, our culture still perpetuates many negative
Muslim stereotypes and Islamophobia. There was a distinct frustrated
tone of voice when Omar spoke about this Islamophobia. He finished by
asking very simply to be treated fairly and as an individual, not based
on the actions of others; a very reasonable request.
Moshe
An Israeli citizen, here for a graduate program, Moshe has been in the
thick of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Growing up, he saw the peace
process rapidly moving forward in his teenage years with Yitzhak Rabin
leading the way. “They were hopeful times,” said Moshe. However,
there were people on both sides who were not ready to move forward
with Hamas and other terrorist groups pushing suicide bombings and
violent protest. This culminated in the assassination of Rabin in 1995
when Moshe believes the peace process came to a screeching halt. He
now believes that there has been negative progress since the second
intafada and today, “ there is an understanding of the status quo that
isn’t useful to either side.” He went on to say that he believes both sides
are waiting for a change in leadership.
We next discussed Moshe’s time in the army, as is mandatory for all
Israeli citizens. His main duty during was to protect Israeli settlements
in the Ghaza strip and during this time he gained a breadth of
knowledge about the Palestinian people. He experienced first hand the
kindness of the Palestinian people who were, “nice, warm people, just
living their daily lives like anyone else.” There were also situations that
arose in which there were attacks on the settlements and he was forced
to defend himself. These two contrasting characteristics allowed Moshe
to, “understand the population better and the challenges faced with
terrorist organizations.”
“The United States supports Israel because they share common values,”
said Moshe. He believes they are both westernized, democratic
countries with long histories of receiving immigrants, talking about
pluralism, and forming communities through immigration.
Furthermore, he cited the fact that they share a symbiotic relationship
with one another benefiting from technologic and military
improvements from both parties.
When I asked Moshe about the situation in Ghaza in 2009, he
responded by saying, “That’s a very neutral question.” Though he said it
tongue in cheek, it still shows his discomfort at talking about this
subject. He went on to explain why he believed the Israeli response was
completely justified. “Israel has been enduring eight years of kasam
rocket firings, with thousands of missiles shot that do not distinguish
between civilians and military personnel,” Moshe began. He went on to
say that the IDF’s (Israeli Defense Force) job was to fight military
combatants and in the densely populated area of Ghaza, there were
unintentional civilian casualties. He then stated why he believed the
civilian death count was slightly inflated. “If an Israeli shoots a
terrorist, his gun can be taken and because he does not have a specific
uniform, he can be counted as a civilian.” He expressed frustration at
the fact the much of the time these events were displayed in the media;
it was portrayed as Israel intentionally harming civilians. Then, Moshe
gave a lengthy explanation to demonstrate the lengths that the IDF goes
through to limit civilian casualties. “If a Hamas combatant is combating
the IDF and is holding a Molotov bottle, an officer from the IDF needs
to decide if it is ok to fire against the person. The office has to decide if
the person is standing close enough to throw and hit the soldiers.” He
went on to discuss that all of this only occurs in a time period of a
couple seconds and other safety measures. “If he has thrown the bottle,
the soldiers aren’t allowed to shoot the combatant because he is no
longer a threat. This is the extent to which Israeli soldiers are trying to
maintain moral values while fighting terror.” When talking about how
he felt the international media portrayed these events he was visibly a
little annoyed by it. He cited the fact that these procedures did not
appear in the news since no one really knew about them.
“I sure hope so,” was Moshe’s response when asked if he thought a twostate solution was possible. His optimism for how soon this would
happen was very limited however. He did not believe that there would
be much progress in the next couple of years citing the fact that
leadership change needs to occur. There are people on both sides who
are not ready for change according to Moshe. “Some Palestinian
extremists need to know that Israel is here to stay and some extremists
in Israel need to understand that Israel is a democratic, Jewish
country.”
Going along with the two-state solution, we then discussed what should
happen to Israeli settlements if a two-state solution is indeed reached.
He believes it would be impossible to clear the larger settlements citing
the difficulties faced when large settlements were removed from Ghaza
in 2005. Instead, an exchange of territory could occur with some land
in the Negev or with a road that connects the West Bank and Ghaza.
There were a couple of locations that Moshe thought would never be
negotiated upon, mainly Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
When asked what he could say to those who believe the security fence
should have never happened he retorted, “suicide bombings should
have never happened.” This outburst of anger was Moshe’s first and
only one, but showed his loyalty and passion for Israel. He cited the fact
that from 2001-2004 there were more than 1000 civilians killed and
wounded from suicide bombers and after the security fence was erected
casualties decreased by 99% and suicide bombings by 96% (according
to the Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs suicide bombing casualties have
decreased by 92% when comparing the years 2001-2004 and 2005 to
today). “Even though there was suffering in Palestinian territory, losing
land isn’t as important as losing life,” said Moshe. He believes that in
order to remove the fence, a new process of trust building must begin.
When asked if there was anything else he would like to add, he
immediately started talking about the cultures of Israel and Palestine.
He believes Israel’s partially westernized culture and the Palestinian
one that is a “more honor based system,” have clashed. However, he
also believes that because of past success in negotiating for peace with
Jordan and Egypt, the same can be done with the Palestinians. The
most important thing is to agree on a common set of values and make
sure that the leadership on both sides understands one another.
Having observed several events and sitting down with a couple of
individuals on both sides of this debate, what can be concluded?
Though everyone whom I talked to based their opinions on logical
arguments, there always seemed to be deep seated allegiances that
swayed their opinion to a particular side. In Omar’s case, he even came
out and said that the main reason for his loyalty to the Palestinian side
was the cultural and religious connection he had. Though the others
whom I observed and interviewed did not come out and say this, it was
clear through their use of language and demeanor that they felt the
same, even if they did not admit it to themselves.
More important than these barriers that seem to exist were the bridges
that appeared when talking to Omar and Moshe. Though they both
staunchly support separate sides they both cited similar reasons as to
why progress is not being made and how progress can be made. Neither
believed current leadership was doing enough to further the peace
process. Furthermore, they both believe that the key to each side
understanding one another is to bridge the cultural gap that exists
between the two sides and find common values that already exist
between both peoples. The fact that two individuals who support
opposite sides believe in very similar ideas when it comes to how peace
can be reached is encouraging.
There were some key disagreements between the two interviewees
however that could make it difficult to create a lasting solution to the
conflict. The city of Jerusalem in particular, seemed to show the stark
contrast between Omar and Moshe. Omar believed that both Israel and
Palestine should have easy access to the city of Jerusalem in a two-state
solution. While many Muslims reside in East Jerusalem, and the “Old
City” includes Muslim Holy sites, the complexities of the relationship
between these two states would make it exceedingly difficult to fully
share control and access. Moshe believed that Jerusalem would never
be on the bargaining table as a piece of land and that it would always be
a part of Israel.
Looking at the similarities in how both believe peace can be achieved
and the stark contrasts in their views on Jerusalem one can see just how
complex the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, and why there have been so
many difficulties when trying to achieve peace. This proves how set
people are in their beliefs on both sides of the conflict are and how
difficult it is to bridge these gaps. The good news is that most people are
willing to try to bridge these gaps; they just seem to be unsure how.
This is where the lack of leadership enters. Both Omar and Moshe
believe that peace can be reached and they are both ready and willing to
do so as it seems to be the case with many others as well. According to
Omar and Moshe there is a general lack of strong leadership however,
which prompts many difficulties when there are large groups of people
ready to do something and there is no one to lead them there.
Works Cited
Al Harbi, Omar. Personal interview. 24 Apr. 2010.
"Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of
Principles." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. N.p., 2008. google. Web.
30 Apr. 2010. .
Rabinowitz, Moshe. Personal interview. 26 Apr. 2010.
"Zionism." Merriam Webster. online ed. 2010. N. pag. Web. 4 May
2010. .