The Gaza Escalation: Understanding Differing Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
February 19, 2009, 6:30-8:30 PM
Cabot Intercultural Center, Tufts University
Speakers: Dahlia Shaham, Mohammed Herzallah, Zach Gold, Alain Hasrouny
Moderator: Eileen Babbitt
In conjunction with the Mediterranean Club, the Fares Center presented a panel discussion of students’ reflections on the recent conflict in Gaza. Eileen Babbitt, Professor of International Conflict Management Practice at the Fletcher School, moderated this event.

Summary

Dahlia Shaham, MALD ’09, began the discussion by expressing her point of view as an Israeli citizen who believes that vast majority of people in Israel-Palestine region want to end the conflict through some sort of political separation. Namely, this refers to the “two state” solution between sovereign Palestinian and Israeli political entities. For Shaham, the most alarming aspect of the Gaza escalation was that both sides seemed to behave in ways counterproductive to what they wanted to achieve. She considered the reasons why the Israeli public largely supported a bombing campaign without believing it worked in favor of the nation’s long-term objectives, attributing this disconnect to a self-destructive political dynamic present in Israeli decision-making. This, Shaham feels, has led to a chronic institutional failure on both Israeli and Palestinian sides, a failure of vision for constructing an end to the conflict, and a tendency to justify wrongdoings on both sides not in terms of how such actions support its own cause, but in response to the other party’s misdeeds.

Mohammed Herzallah, MALD ’10, spoke from the perspective of the child of Palestinian refugees. Herzallah explained how the unique religious, cultural, and nationalistic aspects of the conflict have produced an impasse that has “more to do with international setting than it has to do with Palestinians and Israelis.” He pointed to the power disparity between Israeli decision makers and the Palestinians which, combined with Israel’s military superiority in the region, and the inability of weak Arab states to bolster the Palestinians, has made it impossible for Israel to give up fruits of past military victories, and given it no incentive to acknowledge its role in the suffering of millions of Palestinians. Likewise, the Palestinians are unwilling to concede their own defeat and accept limited Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. Despite Israel’s immense control over situation, Herzallah feels that the Palestinians have succeeded in gaining broad recognition for their cause, and hopes that in time Israeli will shed its militaristic impulses, and that Palestinian leaders will give up some of their more radical demands.

Zach Gold, MALD ’09, began by articulating his belief that the only solution to the conflict is the eventual establishment of two states living side by side in decent security. He rejected the idea of a bi-national one-state, calling it a “preposterous idea, basically a destruction of the state of Israel.” However, he acknowledges that Israel is not helping its own cause by erecting settlements in the West Bank, and a security barrier that even the Israeli Supreme Court has said should be rerouted. These, and the myriad roadblocks Palestinians are forced to navigate, serve as impediments to a Palestinian state. Gold attributed a great deal of these problems to the central issue of both sides not trusting each other. Regarding Hamas, he upheld the American and EU designations of it as a terrorist organization, saying that despite its democratic electoral victory, “being legitimate in the eyes of your constituency does not make you a legitimate actor in the international sphere.” Gold discussed Binyamin Netanyahu’s “economic peace” plan, stressing that a build-up of civil society and job creation must take place before a Palestinian state that is not totally dependent on foreign aid can function. Finally, he concluded by pointing out that the Israeli-Arab conflict has always been broader than the immediate territory.

Alain Hasrouny, MALD ’09, responded to Gold’s point about the conflict being interlined with the larger Middle East, turning to Lebanon in his comments. Hasrouny reflected that since 2001, discourse in the region has changed, focusing on terrorism, instead of national resistance. He stressed his belief that even if national governments don’t recognize Hamas or Hezbollah, the people in those organizations and their followers remain, following their own agenda. The Israeli attack on Hezbollah in 2006 has led to a change in perception of the Israeli military, leading to changing dynamics in the region. “Israel, since 2006, can be defeated. Somehow Hamas showed some resilience last month, so let’s build up on that momentum and in a few years we can win,” Hasrouny said. He sees the Obama administration as having made important overtures to such maligned organizations, but Hasrouny believes that Obama should go further, and talk to Hamas and Hezbollah. 

More Roundtable Events >