Introduction
About
a month ago, I came across a Ted Talk that inspired me to do research into the
significance of personal identity with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Ted Talks are a series of presentations given by people who have
unique ideas to share with the world; a handful of these presentations are
shared as videos on the Ted Talk website. The speaker of the video I watched, a
semi-anonymous French street artist named JR, conducted an art project in eight
cities in Israel and Palestine. JR intended to expose and hopefully transform
the perspectives of individuals from these cities through publicly displayed
photography. JR’s project inspires his audience to question how individuals identify
themselves with respect to their views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is peace
possible in this region considering that the conflict greatly shapes the
personal identities of the people who there? With the intent to explore these
questions, I researched the topic and interviewed four distinct individuals who
each resided in or travelled to the Israeli-Palestinian region. At the
beginning of each interview, I played a section of JR’s talk that explains his
project in Israel and Palestine. I then asked each interviewee to discuss his/her
initial responses to JR’s project. I followed up with questions concerning the
role that identity plays in the continuation or resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prior to reading the interviews that I conducted,
please watch a section of the JR’s talk from 3:06- 9:06 to understand the
foundation of my research: http://www.ted.com/talks/jr_s_ted_prize_wish_use_art_to_turn_the_world_inside_out.html
I’d
like to offer some background of the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel was established as a state within the territory that was once considered
Palestine in 1947. Israel is home to the Holy Land for Christians, Jewish
people, and Muslims. The conflict that exists between Israel and Palestine is
rooted in a disagreement over whether or not Israel should have the territory
that they now have, and the recognition of each entity as a proper state. Each
side has attacked the other in various ways, and the people of Palestine and
Israel see themselves as inherently divided religiously, culturally,
linguistically, and politically. Many restrictions exist regarding Palestinian
rights to step food on Israeli soil, to get a passport, to serve in the military,
and so on. On the other hand, Israelis are not allowed to enter Areas A or B in
Palestine where the Palestinian government is headquartered. These restrictions
and the sentiments of people who are deeply connected to the conflict
correspond with a lack of trust between these two people groups. The Israeli-
Palestinian conflict created a deep divide between people who associate
themselves with either side of the issue.
My
intent throughout the interviews was to become more familiar with the conflict
between Israel and Palestine as it is understood by individuals who live in
that region. The media shapes how I, a foreigner to the conflict, view
Israeli-Palestinian events. I was hoping to overcome the barrier of the media
through communication with people who have, to some degree, witnessed the
conflict first-hand. The names of the people who I interviewed will not be
revealed. However, I will provide some background information about these
individuals. Each interview was conducted separately and without reference to
the content of the other interviews, with the exception of MS and PB, who were
interviewed at the same time. In order to organize the main argument of this
post, I have grouped the interviewee’s responses to the same questions. Later in
the post, I apply international relations theories to the topics of discussion.
Backgrounds of the Interviewees
SM- She grew up for a short
time in Mexico, and mostly in Spain. She was discriminated against for her
Jewish heritage while attending school in Spain. She traveled to Israel for 6
months, and is currently a student here in the US. She analyzed surveys of
public opinions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a recent research project,
and incorporates some of the information from these surveys in her discussion
of the conflict.
DM- He is ethnically a
Palestinian Christian who grew up in Jerusalem, Israel. He identifies with both
sides of the conflict and struggles with this split perspective.
MS- He is a Norwegian
international student in the Washington Semester Program for Middle Eastern
Studies. He just returned from a three week trip to Jordan and Turkey that he
attended with his class. During this trip, his class met with politicians,
refugees, and representatives from various embassies to discuss the situations
in the Middle East.
PB- He was born and raised in
Lebanon. He was in Lebanon during part of the time that the country was
occupied by Israel and during the war in 2006. He was not able to return to his
home country for five years due to the war, and his fields that he farms were
destroyed by cluster bombs during the war. He is a transfer student in the same
program as MS who also attended the trip to Jordan and Turkey.
Interview
What is your response to and opinion of the JR’s art project, “Face 2
Face”?
PB:
“I really thought it was an
interesting idea, because the only difference between Palestinians and
Israelis, from a human perspective, is the language, and even [their languages]
are similar.”
DM:
“I think it’s thought provoking
to put two faces from other sides, but not necessarily seeing a huge difference
[between them]. For some of [the faces featured in JR’s Face 2 Face project], I
think I could probably distinguish them [as Israeli or Palestinian]. For
others, I was going back and forth with myself. But when you live there you
don’t just see faces, you also listen to the language they’re speaking, you
watch their body language, their facial expressions, who they’re hanging out
with, where they’re spending their time. Literally from the way they design
their hair… you can normally tell the difference [between an Israeli and a
Palestinian]. A Palestinian will usually take on cultural traits from the
Palestinian side, and an Israeli will usually take on cultural traits from his
background.”
SM:
“It’s very true that many times
you don’t really see the differences [between Israelis and Palestinians] when
you’re on the ground level and you’re there. I think it’s important [to go to
the West Bank when travelling to Israel] to understand the differences [between
Israelis and Palestinians], and to understand a little more about the
complexity of the issue. The conflict is so specific and so different from
other conflicts. I think [JR’s Face 2 Face] is such an interesting project to
do; to get two people who have the same job and probably have a very similar
life. We have this idea of this division that, in reality, exists in some
parts, especially in the areas that are surrounded by the wall, which is a
shame, but in many parts there is no division and they are living together. Sometimes,
they don’t really hate each other when they have to go to the same bakery or
the same cleaners. Ultimately, [Israelis and Palestinians] are not so different.”
JR stated that his knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through
the international media was much different from what he learned from travelling
to the region. What do you think about the impact that the media has on shaping
how people view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
MS:
“The media plays a huge role
[in how people view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. If you portrayed Arabs
in general as just those people coming out of Friday prayer with a gun in their
hands, saying ‘Death to Israel’, and if you get that picture several times,
then you start to believe that [that portrayal] is the truth, even though you
don’t know them.”
SM:
Often times in the media, the
pictures of dying, injured people and bombs are the ones that get attention on
the front pages. The idea of identifying one side as the enemy and one as the
victim is spread by the media’s use of persuasive images. “It’s a powerful
image and it happens and it’s true, but if you have that constantly every day
and that’s the only news you have from that region, then that’s what you associate
it is like in the region. It’s so obvious to see how media changes our
perception because once I came to the United States and when I read [what the
Spanish and French and American newspapers say], [I could tell that the each
newspaper was] sending a very specific message. Maybe if we had more news
coverage of some of the great things [that people are doing] in the region, it
could change so much about how we view the conflict.”
In your opinion, how does the conflict impact an individual’s sense of
identity?
DM:
“If you come from one side [of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], you’ve grown up with a certain structure and
you’ve gone through certain experiences and you’ve been fed a certain doctrine.
For a Palestinian, waking up and having to walk down the street with the wall
next to him, and soldiers watching him from a tower affects him; it’s his daily
life, it’s become a part of his daily routine and his sense of identity. At the
same time, an Israeli who is afraid to get on a bus because of a bus bomb going
off and his [fear] of that also shapes his identity.”
SM:
“I think that part of my identity
was forced in me because I was seen as the ‘different’ one as [the only Jewish
student of my school in Spain]. People would angrily speak to me about
the conflict in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and relate me to the issue by
calling Israel ‘my country,’ when [at that point] I hadn’t even been to Israel.
That strong idea of who we are makes it easier to differentiate each other. In
each side they have derogative ways of calling each other. I think that the
role that religion plays is sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful to the
conflict. Just thinking that [Israel] was stolen land and that it was taken
away from other people takes away from [Jewish people’s] identity too. Palestinians
became Israelis, and many who received Israeli citizenship would hate to be
called Arab-Israelis because they feel that it takes away from their
Palestinian identity and they want to feel different [from Israelis].
Palestinians don’t have a citizenship, they don’t have a passport, and they
don’t want to become Israeli, so what state do they belong to? They are static
refugees; this is an entirely new form of the word refugee. Religion is one of
the main parts of identity [in the Israeli-Palestinian region], but it’s this
fighting for territory with religious motivation that comes with this built
concept of who we are and how we behave as a people, and this central part of
identity relating to land that defines the conflict.”
MS:
Speaking from his experience
meeting with refugees during his trip to the Middle East, “Some Palestinians
have never been to Palestine. This is hard to imagine. [The refugees I met]
were poor and heavily dependent on others, and [this shapes their sense of
identity]. In an ideal world, no one should be a refugee, but being a refugee
for, like, sixty years, creates an identity that is really horrible.”
How would Israeli and Palestinian people’s senses of identity be impacted
by the escalation or diminishing of the conflict in this region?
DM:
“I cannot predict how a people
group might define themselves. From a personal perspective, I am both Israeli
and Palestinian. I have an Israeli passport, but my grandparents are
Palestinian. Culturally, I am very much Israeli and Palestinian, and [this]
definitely shapes [my] identity. You are both, but how can you be both when
they are so different and they are enemies, how can you bring those two
identities together? On one hand, I do not want my Palestinian friends in the
Palestinian areas to be harmed, and I don’t want them to go through the
suffering that they have to go through on a daily basis. But, on the other
hand, I don’t want my Israeli friends to go through the suffering that they
have to go through either. It’s tough when your best friends are
serving in an army which is ultimately harming your other friends and your
family. I will support my Israeli friends who are in the army, in terms
of helping them personally, but in terms of helping the cause that they are
involved in, I find it hard to involve myself personally. I have a personal
connection to both [sides of the conflict]. There are other [people who can
identify with both sides], but they find themselves in situations where they have
to identify themselves with one people group. Here’s the thing, I am both of
them, so I want to be associated with both, but how can I associate with both
without coming into an identity crossroads. I want to be both, but it’s
almost like I need to split myself in two and walk different ways.”
SM:
“I hate to say this, but I do
see a full-scale war as a bigger possibility than a peace time, and I see peace
as a temporary condition, since it has been [inconsistent] in that region since
1947. I think people really think about a full-scale war and it wouldn’t affect
peoples’ identities so fundamentally. Even people who live in cities that have
a big population of both Jewish and Palestinian people, I think that [people
who are friends now] would still be friends [in the state of war]. And I think
that people who see themselves as different will still see themselves as
[inherently] different in the case of war or peace.”
Is resolution possible among people in this region, and how so?
MS:
MS emphasized the importance of
communication among people from both sides of the conflict. He works at New
Story Leadership, an organization that brings 10 students from Israel and
Palestine to the US to do a summer internship and program together in Washington,
DC. It’s not often that you hear the voices of 20 years old people who are
experiencing the conflict first-hand in the discussion of Israeli-Palestinian
affairs, and this program helps alleviate young voices of people who are
working alongside and with people from the other side of the conflict. “If you
get to know the people, and the culture, and the history, then it will be more
difficult for you to call that person your enemy.”
PB:
Agreeing with MS about the
importance of communication among the opposing sides, “The way that [JR’s
project] looks at bringing about a solution is flawed, if that was his intent,
because there is no communication involved. My sister went to a conference with
her school’s Model UN team in New York, and before [her group] left, she was
told by a government official, ‘your people are technically at war with Israel,
so you are not allowed to communicate with them [at the conference].’ They’re
fifteen year olds. I think the internet has been a great forum [for increasing
communication], and it can also produce radicalism. I was reading an article in
a Lebanese website about an Israeli entrepreneur who made a bicycle out of
cardboard. [The bicycle] lasts for a couple of years, it’s weather resistant,
it costs twenty dollars [to make], and it’s going to change transportation in
developing countries. This is just showing something positive from
the other side that humanizes [the opposition].”
DM:
He replied immediately,
“Definitely. Personally, I think peace on paper is better than no peace on
paper. Though, if you want to bring people to actually live together in
‘harmony,’ if you want to call it, I think bringing people face to face,
building friendships, relationships, just getting to know each other [is the
way to reach a peaceful solution]. One of the key routes to resolving this
conflict is not [through the] government, but through grassroots [efforts] that
make people change the psychological barriers that they have, and hopefully
that will affect the government. The government is the ultimate instrument of
the people. I think grassroots working with the local, native people and
creating platforms for Palestinians and Israelis to meet each other is really
important. [Then] if a Palestinian or an Israeli says ‘Death to all of the Jews
or the Arabs,’ [he/she] will think, ‘Well, that includes one of my friends,’
and [he/she] will change. If people genuinely want to listen to the other
person [from the opposite side of the conflict] they will listen. You’ll hear
people say, ‘If I were a Palestinian, I would act this way, but I’m a Jew so
I’m not that way.’ Growing up in an Israeli high school, you can many times
understand [an individual’s] opinion by listening to [his/her] parents. 20 years
ago there weren’t any checkpoints or wall, but today, there are more
organizations that bring Arabs and Jews together, so it’s hard to say when
there were more opportunities [for Israelis and Palestinians to interact].”
On the other hand, DM notes
that, “There’s almost a culture not to go to these organizations [that bring
Israelis and Palestinians together]. I go and I meet a Palestinian guy, we
become friends for a week, we go back home, and then what? What do we do? I
think it’s a beginning, but I think definitely interacting with each other,
maybe rallying groups together to make a change and start a new trend [that
supports the interaction between Israelis and Palestinians]. It’s really hard
and complicated, because there’s the issue of equality. A Palestinian who goes
to the Israeli land will feel inferior, and the dialogue looks a certain way
and becomes imbalanced. So where can we create platforms for
Palestinians and Israelis to feel both equal and comfortable enough to engage
in conversation and not feel inferior to the other? Because when you
feel inferior to another person, you either become extremely aggressive, or you
just shut up- you don’t express yourself. I think there are people who need to
start teaching the different cultures and different histories that both nations
have; many Palestinians don’t know what the Jewish have gone through, there are
Israelis who don’t know what happened to the Palestinians. And in our political
sphere, there are things that need to happen to. [This does not only have to
occur from the ground up], it can come from international pressure too. But
ultimately, who needs to live together? It’s the people who live [in the region
of the conflict]. And the governments and organizations need to make platforms
for [discussions between Israelis and Palestinians on equal footing] to happen.”
SM:
“From my studies of surveys [on
the subject matter], the large majority of Israelis and Palestinians would like
to not have an army and to not have a violent conflict, but the problem is that
they still don’t trust each other. Even Palestinians that live in Israel and
have an Israeli passport cannot serve in the Israeli military.” When walking
around Tel Aviv, she would sometimes see young gangs fight each other based on
the prejudice between the Israelis and Palestinians. SM described the causes of
these fights as “unfounded hate that is maybe also founded on how we perceive
the conflict, because we have to be on either one side or the other.” SM notes
that only recently people have started to identify themselves as supporting
both states. Many public officials who claim that they support a two-state
solution are actually biased towards supporting one of the sides.
SM stated that when Americans
were asked, ‘Do you consider long time peace to be viable in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict?’ in 1967, the results were over 70% yes. The same survey taken in the
US in 2012 had a 68% response of no. She says, “I think [peace between Israel
and Palestine] is possible but not any time soon. I just think that the only
way this will happen is if there is an authority in Gaza that actually cares
for its people, considering that every single day there are trucks of food and
medical care and all kinds of help that comes from Israel to Gaza, and Hamas
just treats its people horribly. We have seen the Arab Spring happen; change is
coming. Maybe it will come a time that the leaders in this region genuinely
seek a peaceful solution, because I think that the people want peace.”
Can a foreign, third-party mediator truly help with developing peace
between Israel and Palestine, considering that they do not relate to the
conflict as personally as do the natives of the region?
DM:
“From my experience, foreigner
organizations and third parties will [get involved with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict], and they will almost always be biased, favoring one side over the
other. They are coming with their culture, their language, their ‘solution’ for
the conflict and trying to impose it on the people. If a foreigner… really
wants to help the conflict, he has to go and ask the native people or
organizations, ‘What can I do in order to serve your people or your country
best?’ Instead of coming and telling the native people, ‘you need to this and
this, because I know [what’s best for you] better than you [do].’”
SM:
“I do believe that a third
party can play a very important role, we have seen this since 1947.” SM uses the
example of the success of The Camp David Accords, which was fostered by
President Carter to establish peace among Egyptian Muslims and Israeli Jews.
With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the real third party at the end of the
day needs to be diplomacy. In reference to the involvement by the UN, and the recent
recognition of Palestinian statehood, SM says, “The UN recognizes the state of
Palestine, but if Israel does not recognize Palestine, what’s the difference?
Canadian ambassador stated that he voted against an independent Palestinian
state because he believes that if the region does not solve the problem
themselves, then what difference does international recognition make?”
IR analysis
Now
that we have heard some individuals’ opinions of the conflict, let’s try to
analyze the Israeli-Palestinian issue from international relations’ theorists’
perspectives. From a constructivist perspective, the conflict between Israel and
Palestine is essentially a conflict between two distinct identities. Israelis
will continue to fight the Palestinians and vice versa as long as each state
and their people view the conflict personally. People who support Israel’s statehood
believe that Israelis had a right to that land as a part of their religious
identity. Palestinians can offer the same argument to justify why they deserve
to have the land now referred to as Israel, since, of course, that territory did
belong to them at one point. The people who live in this region are pressured
to associate with one side of the issue or the other, and they consider this
association to be a prominent aspect of their identities. Thus, the motivation
for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in the opposition of one cultural
people group against the other. From a
realists’ perspective, the Palestinians and Israelis are in conflict due to a
power struggle. By claiming part of Palestine, Israel threatened Palestinian
power. The violent attacks that followed proved that the Israeli-Palestinian
territorial dispute presents a security threat to each state. Therefore, a
realist would argue that this conflict won’t be resolved until one state comes
out as the “winner,” by eliminating the threats associated with that state by
taking it over. A liberalist perspective would support the creation of
institutions that join Israelis and Palestinians together. Liberalists would
bring these two cultural groups to a platform where they can communicate
effectively and learn from each other. This communication and partnership will
teach these two entities to become less aggressive towards each other, much
like what many of the interviewees stated. For the most part, the people that I
interviewed saw the conflict from the constructivist and liberalist lenses.
Conclusion
The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complicated by its history, the religious
factors of the disagreement, and the fact that peoples’ views of the conflict
are such prominent aspects of their identities. A constructivist would
understand why this conflict is especially complex and difficult to resolve.
Constructivists view issues with attention to the cultural and identity-based
motivations of a people group. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued
for such a long span of time that a constructivist would understand that the
opposition of these two bodies of people would be difficult to repair. Many of
the people I interviewed for this post agreed on the importance of communication
and education for the Israelis and Palestinians to overcome their differences. Liberalists
would agree that the establishment of forums for Israelis and Palestinians to work
together and learn from each other would be helpful for resolving the issue.
Institutions bring states under a common umbrella, where they no longer act
competitively against each other, but together as a team. Listening to the
voices of the people who have studied or who have been individually affected by
the Israeli-Palestinian issue is important. By listening to these individuals,
we can gain an understanding of how personal the conflict is to the people of
that region. As a foreigner, I feel that it would be wrong if I judged the Israeli-Palestinian
situation and proposed a solution for it. Doing so would cause me to impose my
biased beliefs on the lives of people who view the conflict as an integral part
of themselves. A third-party mediator can be extremely helpful with resolving
the conflict, especially since Israel and Palestine are so aggressive with
their policies and attacks against each other. This mediator must be unbiased
to the issue, and peace must be established on the ground level as well as in
the government. Peace comes from equal communication, education, and relationship
building; these are must be goals emphasized in current and future initiatives
to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
