« Portrait | Interview Highlights
Interview with Michal Eskenazi
Please tell me about yourself.
My name is Michal Eskenazi. I'm from Karmiel1, my parents still live there; I have also lived in Nitzana2 for a long period and now I live in Beer Sheva . I study at the university there.
Please tell me about YIFC.
YIFC was founded with three goals in mind. The first is promoting Israeli-Palestinian dialogue as much as possible. The second is less common in this field, to promote European involvement in dialogue here and in the conflict. People here tend to look to the United States but we believe Europe has much to contribute and we stress the importance of relations between Israel and Europe. The third goal is creating a framework for young leadership in this context.
In Hebrew, we haven’t yet found a term for distinguishing young leadership from young professionals. Young professionals are young people who have attained respectable positions, mostly due to their leadership abilities. At YIFC we claim that although they have achieved a lot for their age, it hasn’t amounted to that much, broadly speaking. These leaders are in the outer circles; for example, assistants to members of parliament. Occasionally, you hear of people who became members of Knesset3 at a very young age but usually you don’t. There isn’t a tendency to welcome young people [in politics], quite the contrary. So these people work as parliamentary assistants or student union leaders and relative to their age they are successful, but we believe that there is much more to be desired. These people are very open, they are creative and flexible thinkers and have fewer commitments than they will have ten years from now. In ten years, they will be committed to family life or work; they are employed now but there are still more possibilities open to them now. We believe that these [young] leaders are situated between civil society and decision makers. These are our goals.
YIFC was founded in 2002 by two young men, Ofer Zalzberg and Dan Dubiner, after they participated in a conference in Hamburg that encouraged dialogue between young Israelis and Palestinians. They came to the conclusion that there is a need for such an organization. Pretty quickly, they gathered many people. What is special about YIFC is that it wasn’t founded after there were funds or even in an organized manner. I can criticize the lack of organization when it was established, but this was the result of the main focus being on the activity itself. The organization was founded two and a half years ago, in August 2003, and already we are working on our sixth conference, besides many other projects and Euro-Med4 conferences. Our main focus is on organizing conferences. There were activities going on even before the organization was set up. Over the past year we have re-structured the organization. We have a board, as well as three people who serve as project managers; there are more people who are joining us, people we send to participate in conferences on behalf of YIFC.
Besides the conferences, YIFC focuses on examples from other conflicts and their solutions, such as Ireland and Moldova, and examining solutions vis-à-vis the conflict here, keeping in mind the question of whether implementing solutions found abroad is even possible. There are Euro-Med projects, a conference in Ireland that focuses on conflict resolution, projects focusing on vision, meaning how we would like this region to be in twenty years. We put together a team of Palestinians, Israelis and Europeans to work and “envision” the future together and then to examine the ways by which to realize their vision. Methodologically, we define and examine our aims, the obstacles that exist, and then search for a solution. That’s the mantra…
Our conferences aim to grant people a fresh start while also trying to focus our work on thinking ahead. Another thing we do is emphasize the importance of follow-up activities. The next conference in Germany won’t be completed when the conference itself ends. The conference plan includes the follow-up meeting scheduled to take place a month later. I want to stress that we have always planned to do this but lacked the funds.
When did you start being involved in peace work?
I can’t remember exactly. I can’t really pinpoint exactly because my involvement took on different forms in different fields. It began in high school, when I volunteered at Akim5 and then I was a youth counselor. After high school, I volunteered for a year in Nitzana. I stayed on there, working on more projects and also got involved in other things. Then I did some volunteer projects while studying at the university and later at YIFC6, my organization.
Why is follow-up important?
It means grounding the conference’s outcome or allowing for implementation of its conclusions in a well-organized and better planned manner. Although meeting is fun and really is an experience, there have been studies about the effects one meeting had on participants and the number of people who went on to be active in the field. Some 50% of the people we send to conferences continue to be active in YIFC or maintain ties with YIFC while they are engaged in other activities. This is an important outcome. We need to wait and see; the next conference is coming up. There is a stage, which is very important, in which there is time to think things over on the last day: if this matters to us, how should we proceed? Usually this is when people have lots of good ideas for ongoing activity. During one conference, someone came up with the idea of Middle East 2020,7 in another, joint educational programs meant for Israelis and Palestinians in higher education in Europe. There are very creative ideas, especially given the fact that people come up with them at the very last minute on the final day, but things end there. By the time people meet again and raise these things…We think it’s a good idea for people to return from the conference and let things sink in, let people get their bearings, tell everybody about it and only then meet again. This ensures things are calmer because every person went through a process on a personal level and from there people continue together. I hope this time we will have a follow-up meeting.
During our last conference in Amsterdam, we contacted the Clingendael Institute,8 which is near The Hague. They have specialists in negotiation and they gave a short workshop about negotiation and game theory at our conference there and it left quite an impression on all our participants. We would like to organize professional workshops for people who want to work together on joint projects. For example, I am currently organizing the upcoming conference in Germany. I am going through a process too because this involves working together with a Palestinian organization. While working on planning a conference, we too are undergoing a process. We would like to train people who are planning to implement a joint project to prepare for future joint work. There is a problem with funds here too, which prevents it from coming together, but we will succeed. I believe we will.
How did you find YIFC?
I was walking down a corridor at the university one day when I saw an advertisement (it wasn’t very obvious) for a conference in Amsterdam for Israeli, Palestinian and European students to discuss Europe’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, I debated what to do; I wasn’t that interested, I was too lazy to even write up my CV and it was only at the last minute that I submitted it. YIFC organized this conference, together with a European as well as a Palestinian organization. I have been there ever since.
In the past, I had been active in dialogue activities inside Israel with Arabs9 and the Bedouin.10 I was aware this field existed but I didn’t really take part in it. The conference opened my eyes. At first I thought of it as traumatic because it was a very powerful experience. It was very special and required time to digest.
Nimrod Goren and I remained in contact during the months following the conference. Nimrod coordinated that conference and runs the organization. After, I became involved in the organization’s projects. This is how I reached my current position. I coordinate the project teams and I think it has been my greatest contribution here so far. I am the coordinator for the team; that means creating a framework for activities and work in the organization meant for our activists. This means I need to be aware of all the activity going on [in YIFC] and to me that is very important. I am also in charge of organizing a conference, like the one in Amsterdam I participated in but focusing on improving and developing the upcoming conference’s framework. The conference should take place in Berlin this coming April [2006].
Please tell me about the conference you took part in.
I will, but from my own personal perspective and not from the perspective of what it should have been. For me personally, it was very powerful because I came with opinions that were very clear-cut. I was amazed because most people know what is going on but don’t actually experience this reality. Many people whose opinions can be counted as left-wing and who believe in cooperation with Palestinians have simply never met Palestinians. It’s important for people who don’t believe in such cooperation as well, but it is especially significant for people who believe in peace or believe in negotiating. My own experience is that I had a very well constructed idea of what was necessary or what I wanted to see happen to end the conflict, so you would have thought I’d be a fairly “easy” case. But when I arrived, I understood that reality is different from what we thought. Though I thought I knew what is going on and thought I was familiar with the reality here, I wasn’t.
You can think you know what you want [to know] but you don’t really know the other side, so you don’t even have the means to imagine such negotiations or dialogue. It is impossible to get a sense of this from reading the headlines, interpretations or those articles you read in school. In the meetings, I discovered that it all boils down to differences in mentality, differences in what we want, diversity of backgrounds (ultimately this affects everything) and therefore necessitates bridging matters that are less apparent. This was very difficult for me because it isn’t as simple as I thought; you don’t just show up, make peace and then go back home, things don’t work that way. I am portraying it in its extremity but that’s because I didn’t understand it and so I was really shaken up. There was a different approach to the matter at the conference because while my approach was, “what’s the problem, let’s do it”, others came carrying completely different loads. They came bearing psychological baggage I wasn’t aware of, given my life circumstances.
Can you give an example of this?
I will give you three. I was challenged by the matter of “why don’t they understand that we want to talk to them? Why don’t they understand that we want to make peace with them?” I’m exaggerating, but it always comes down to suicide attacks. I was shocked to hear people tell me to my face that they were in favor of them! This was during Operation Defensive Shield or maybe later, in March 2004, at the peak of the second intifada11 – at least I hope that was its peak. Initially no one actually said it, but in the middle of a conversation it was finally voiced and the people who said it were people I had sat with over coffee the night before, talking about life. I understand the complexity. There is a reason a person will say this-- it's because of social pressure. Some people came to the conference before telling or not intending to tell their community they were going to meet with Israelis. I know I should appreciate that they came.
Second is the matter of anger. When you meet, people need to unload all their prejudices; everybody unleashes slogans and only afterwards can you begin to talk; this is a process. This was my first time. [Israeli] people who attend our conferences meet with a Palestinian for the first time, so this process repeats itself. People come, let everything out and then they begin to talk matters over. During that conference, after people had unpacked everything, I couldn't understand why they [the Palestinians] were still so angry. I mean, we were there and we had come to talk, so why was it so important to get all this out? Though I knew and understood, it struck me suddenly that I was witnessing the actual people firsthand. I was seeing, before me, people who pass through checkpoints12 every day, people for whom the checkpoints are now the core issue for debate or even of the whole conflict-- it's their daily routine. These people, who endure this reality daily, were explaining it to me and I needed to make the connection -- them going through this and not just figures in articles.
Third, and I recall this strongly because I also encountered it after, is the differences between perceptions of the meeting. Perhaps it is linked to their background and daily life, but they [Palestinians] come and very much want to make an immediate change. We hold our dialogue sessions yet nothing changes, as though for the Palestinians we Israelis are the representatives of the State of Israel and we are responsible for changing the situation. I would like to instigate change but I have yet to take up a post in the Prime Minister’s office, so right now I can’t…I am also just a civilian, I do have the power allotted to citizens but it isn’t the same power the state has, not yet.
Towards the end of the conference, after having undergone a very significant process together and many discussions, something happened in Gaza and eleven Palestinians were killed. During the conference, there are seven to ten days of meetings and discussions together with the Europeans, and then three days that stress socializing. The socializing part took place near Amsterdam. It is important so that there are social and cultural encounters. During the last part, the “let’s just have fun” part, this thing happened in Gaza and the Palestinians refused to speak to us. We tried to explain that we were there and that we hadn’t done anything, but their perspective was that “you live in Israel, you served in the IDF13, the guys serve in reserves, and we have nothing to say to you.” This was after we had the joint process. I grasped the asymmetry in coming to these discussions, in terms of how people perceive them.
Did you serve in the military?
Yes. Luckily I wasn’t posted on front lines; I did evaluations. I was an instructor in training courses, so I could say that I wasn’t armed but I didn’t really aspire to tell that to the Palestinians at the conference or explain why it was significant to me. It’s difficult because it’s obvious to me they view it [my military service] differently than I do, I can certainly see that.
How did you overcome the crisis?
It was much to the credit of the Dutch facilitators, and it was mostly a matter of time. We had a discussion that night. We sat in a circle and people hurled words at each other. There are a few reasons [we overcame the crisis]; really we had undergone a process together; we had talked and talked and talked, it wasn’t as though we had just arrived at the conference. We really tried speaking as honestly as possible and we told them we could understand them. I felt it was also an act they had to perform in order to demonstrate something. Ultimately, we did get to talking. Although it ended with smiles and hugs, talking about it now makes me feel what it did. I felt as though I had been exposed, as though part of my skin had been peeled off.
Are you referring to the Palestinian participants not speaking to you?
Yes, and then they made a scene so things wouldn’t go over quietly. That’s okay, too, but I think that the differences between us within [our] groups became apparent then. We didn’t come bearing a single opinion, united; on the contrary. In YIFC, we try to stress that people aren’t representatives during the conferences and that people represent themselves. We don’t have meetings at night to plot our strategy for the next day and there is room for right-wing people or left-wing people. Every person should say what they think. That group [the Palestinian participants] had a different approach to it, and perceived itself as one body representing something, and it resulted in asymmetry as well as being a power struggle. In the end, there was a shift within the group and the people who did understand what was happening calmed the others down. It took a day and a half, during which there was not a single meeting, as they refused to talk to us. It was only the following evening when, followed by a surge of good will, things worked out in an optimistic atmosphere.
What was important for you to say during this conversation?
That it varies and each person is an individual. Some people stressed that it was important for us to defend ourselves, too. Part of the Israeli group tried to focus on what we had gone through together. It was important for me to bring it down to the level of “you and me”. Everyone knows that although we may have concluded what needs to be included in educational curricula in order for there to be peace, it doesn’t mean that tomorrow it will appear in [Palestinian and Israeli] schoolbooks. This exists everywhere, not only here. The path begins on the personal level and from there it will continue, so I said, “Let’s take it from the personal level and then move further”. I remember stressing that. It was difficult because if it didn’t work here between us, how could I leave hopeful about succeeding on higher levels? You could cut the energy in the room with a knife…that was an experience. I remember that on the plane back home I was thinking things over; I felt that it had been powerful enough an experience for me to carry on with, and so it’s been almost two years since…
Why are the conferences held abroad?
It’s actually quite simple: logistically speaking, it is very difficult to organize a conference here, you need permits; sometimes Palestinians aren’t necessarily willing to enter Israel for this. It’s simpler to hold the conferences abroad. It’s absurd, we know we are flying people abroad to meet though they live as close as half hour from each other but considering the logistics, this works. It isn’t easy for us, but this is more convenient and it is easier to fundraise abroad if we hold a conference in the donor country rather than here. However, we aim to hold the follow-up meetings in Jerusalem;14 it will be a smaller gathering and we will be able to raise funds for it in advance. Our goal is to hold as many of the meetings here as possible.
Let me give you an example. In mid-December [2005], two weeks ago, we held a conference. It was less a dialogue conference, more like a discussion, entitled “Europe and the Middle East Peace Process: the Role of Young Leadership”. We managed to attract high profile Palestinian participants as well as young people [Israelis] who had taken part in a Belgian project that took place in September, but it wasn’t easy, and in that case there were only a few people.
What were the difficulties?
Even arranging logistics for five people, while three or four of them had Jerusalem ID.15 This is what we can do for the time being, unfortunately.
Earlier you mentioned a project called Middle East 2020, could you tell me about it?
Yes. The idea came up during a conference in Miami, which Nimrod Goren participated in (he’s the executive director). There is a European project called Europe 202016 and the thought occurred to Nimrod to have such a conference for the Middle East. It means bringing Israelis and Palestinians together to plan what we want to have here, what scenarios are possible here and how to promote them together. Last winter, Franck Biancheri one of the initiators of Europe 2020 and of Erasmus17 came for a visit and participated in our conference here. Franck Biancheri also founded a European party; he is very experienced and he came here to help us consider how to promote joint educational programs in Europe during a five-day visit here. Now we are working on planning and on scheduling. There is the matter of funds. I hope it will be successful.
How do you intend to make your work and your conferences affect the political level?
At present there are a few levels. In the organization, we are networking and exposing people to our work as well as working on public relations. Every year we mark YIFC’s birthday. It’s an excuse to celebrate and we organize a meeting and invite a lecturer from another organization. This year we held the birthday meeting at the Floerscheimer Institute18 and they did a presentation of scenarios concerning the future of Jerusalem. We invite people who aren’t members to come in order to introduce them to our work; we invite officials, too. We publish our conference conclusions in reports. We try to emphasize the importance of the role young leadership has [to play] and select people who have not yet been exposed to this issue and who can reach decision makers. We also have a few ideas for joint projects with people from the field of technology in different areas who are influential and could affect the field, which is important. In terms of the conferences, I began to talk about the conference we held in Belgium. Young people [from Europe] were selected in Belgium and Yuli Tamir19 selected people here, politically active people from different non-profit organizations and parties, and together they had a political conference for more professional people. Since then, the participants have met again, this time in Jerusalem. One of the Palestinian participants from there, along with Dan Dubiner from YIFC, presented at a conference that took place at Ben Gurion University.20
I must say, it isn’t easy. We all volunteer, none of us get paid and this affects our work in both positive and negative ways. The positive aspect is that people act out of pure motivation because it is important to them. This is very clear at meetings; people are very busy with their lives, our schedules run until nine or ten pm but in spite of this, people still manage to do something else, and this is a big advantage. The negative aspect is that people have less time to invest in this work because they have to survive, financially speaking, or have prior commitments. I know there are things we could do more quickly, but because we only check in at night to see what happened all day, it takes longer. That’s okay; we are progressing and things are working out.
Are there Palestinian members in YIFC?
No. It is an Israeli organization which always collaborates with other organizations. I can’t think of a single project where we didn’t partner up with another organization. Part of what we are saying is that we need to work cooperatively; therefore YIFC collaborates with Palestinian organizations.
What challenges does this work pose?
There is no shortage there… I will talk about my position as coordinator and then about organizing the conferences. My initial challenge – which I overcame -- was to create a system for our work. Until then, every person had their project and was working solo while touching base with a board committee member. I picture it like a sun with a circle in the center and rays around it. I needed to take these people who were working alone and define their responsibilities and say, “you are linked to each other”. The problem was not that people weren’t in touch with each other, it was just we didn’t have weekly meetings, during which we could connect what we were doing. Of course our work is connected, content-wise, but for example, take logistics. In YIFC a person is responsible for their project from start to finish, in terms of logistics, fundraising, summarizing, and it was really difficult to connect individual work to connect to the others’ but it was really important; the organization operates differently now.
Currently, the challenge is how to make time when there is none. We want to increase the number of volunteers. While we receive many requests, the question is how to integrate people, because to do that you need people to supervise their work. We are all volunteers, there is a limited amount of human resources, so how do we increase the number of volunteers and thereby widen the scope of our work? This could potentially double the scope of our work, but now this is something we still regard as a challenge.
In terms of [organizing] conferences, the challenges are endless. There are the technical challenges of the budget and all kinds of things, as well as the question of how to promote ourselves. All our projects involve this; what we are saying is we have a good cause, let’s realize it. I am certain we will succeed. There is a challenge in working with other organizations; they work differently, we are different, they are different.
This combination is like a little conference in itself, only it takes place over a longer period of time. There are questions too, such as what do we want to happen at the conference? What do you want? What are the concerns? How do we ensure we work well with the other side and refrain from hurting people from the other side? Only then you get to the matter of the conference’s content. The idea of the conference repeats itself. I talked about our methodology earlier, but we also ask ourselves what we seek to improve or what the focus should be. I think the challenge will be facing the Israeli group, or actually all three groups – the Israelis, Palestinians and Europeans. After that happens, we can extract more from the conference. I think that at first, people were enthusiastic about talking but now they are tired of this. There is a sense of people becoming fed up with talking because although people talk, nothing changes. What we need to prove is that talking is not limited to talking; it is the start of other things. This is yet another challenge.
I think a general challenge for me in all this work is realizing that things are possible, because I am very skeptical. It might not sound like I am, but I tend to complain and be skeptical. I overcame my cynicism, but that was part of it, too. Gradually, I have come to understand that it is not a matter of skepticism but rather believing that it can take place and of looking up a bit. If you do, you can walk in the [right] direction, but staying skeptical won’t lead me anywhere. This is YIFC’s vision, generally speaking, and it applies to my work as well. I really appreciate the people who are active in YIFC. What has always amazed me is the fact that they aren’t checking to see what the next step should be, rather they are thinking about the next five or ten steps and about getting there. I wasn’t even capable of thinking ten steps were possible. This is not a minor challenge.
What changed for you?
At first, I was amazed that people think that way. I mean, it isn’t that I had never coordinated projects before I got to YIFC. I did, and I also coordinated events before, but they were always feasible, local events that necessitated less effort, and that worked within a framework, which gave me some backing. When I was a counselor in Nitzana, if, say, I wanted to organize a joint project with the Bedouin, I approached a few centers. There was always someone backing me; it was very easy, I was on steady ground. I couldn’t imagine there was anything I couldn’t achieve.
The change is that I met people who would say, “let’s organize a conference. No matter how small our budget, we will get by, we will get it organized, we’ll work.” I learned so much! Though I didn’t have much experience in this field prior to YIFC, I learned a lot: by thinking things are possible, they really do come true. Things happen, I meet people, I contact people, there is a sort of growing up (or the opposite…) and it affects my life. I always had many aspirations, I am an ambitious person but I always thought, “Well, I’ll get there” and now I think, “I will get there now”. This seems important to me.
What do you need from someone on the other side in order to meet?
I look for willingness, enough motivation because I think they encounter different difficulties than we do, to a less extent during these past six months, but the difficulties they encounter are different. I observe from the sidelines; I don’t try to get involved because it’s important to let everyone have their space, even with the problems, to not butt in. From the sidelines it looks like they have various issues to overcome, so a partner needs to be willing to do that. One of the difficulties we encounter is communication, even technical aspects of communication, of returning calls or being around. We are now trying to initiate meetings because we have been used to working over email. This is the center of our work, computers, and in the case of the organization I am working with on the conference I am responsible for, we have been trying to meet as much as possible, face to face, because this makes all the difference.
Which organization is this?
I don’t want to say.
I think it is important that my partners tell me what is bothering them on time, that they reveal the issues that come up, or the questions, subject matter they disagree with, but not wait until the last minute. Problems need to be raised so that we know about them and also for the integrity of our work.
Is there anyone you wouldn’t work with on ideological grounds?
I never discussed this with people from the organization formally. I can answer you, yes; let’s just say that I need to believe we basically share the hope that both sides need to exist here, this is fairly basic. I’ll have a hard time getting a formal letter acknowledging this, but I do need respect – or maybe not respect but mutual agreement to the continuing existence of both of us here and the need to learn to live together. I’m not here alone, nor is the other side; there is no point in dialogue if that is the assumption. From there on, we can discuss questions such as why and how, as well as everything else. We discuss this often, about how people I would never think are capable of having such a dialogue come to participate.
Like whom?
On the Israeli side an example is people who live in settlements,21 or people who support the Likud Party.22 People who are active there [in these ideological and political movements] came claiming there is no such thing as a Palestinian. Yet they did come to talk to them about this and this is a very important kind of change and this is the most important effect. In terms of that, I used to think I was an easier partner for dialogue, but it is true that I also went through a very significant process. I think that when we bring people who would not have come otherwise, it is the most important part.
How do you reach out to the general public?
We publish information about the conferences in different places, in various centers, at the university, on websites. I don’t remember exactly how we reached out to the people I gave as an example before, but usually people bring friends along. I know that I am I thinking about people I really want introduced to a dialogue program, in light of the upcoming conference. I don’t want people to come because they can come but because they think differently than I do, not in order to convince them to think the way I do but because it is important to be exposed to other ideas, it is for most people I know. As in every field, we need to get to know ideas we wouldn’t necessarily agree with. I read newspapers I know I clearly won’t agree with but I think it’s important to know what they are dealing with. I talk to people who think differently than I do, but that is what this is all about.
So how do you reach out to people who don't share your views?
Again, you can do it by advertising, but if you want to really get people to come, you need to know people or have people meet with people who have come in the past. This is my opinion. People who wouldn’t naturally go to such a conference won’t be persuaded to attend after seeing an ad in the paper or on campus. I think the key is introducing people to the issue personally, especially telling them what is going on at conferences and not just saying, “Come meet with Arabs”. That isn’t the way to do it.
You mention settlers participated in one of the conferences. How was that?
That happened during the last conference. I didn’t take part in it but I will tell you what I heard. There were some difficult dynamics, arguments, discussions, and obviously people there weren’t saying, “we agree”. A little while ago I met one of the Palestinian participants who came to the conference. He told me that he talked on the phone or chatted on the internet with one of the participants from a settlement, who said that after the conference something changed: “I changed my mind. I can understand you.” To hear such a thing is… I hadn’t heard about this because I am not in touch with those participants, but to hear such a thing, and to hear it from a Palestinian participant who told me about that guy from a settlement… I thought, well, we need to keep this up.
It is probably easier working with people who are more involved or who have more access to these issues. Perhaps such people would be able to start initiating projects, but it is important to stress that every step we take towards cooperation and dialogue is meaningful, even if it is only in the mind of a single person.
Maybe the next time they are sitting around with people they will say something that is different, that is also something. I don’t need people to think as I do, I want people to discover that dialogue is an option, be introduced to the fact that people on the other side don’t have horns… see that not all of them are terrorists like you see on television.
What kind of prejudices do you encounter?
From what I see on the Palestinian side, to them we are all just one big army. I can imagine where this is coming from; people have never met Israelis who aren’t soldiers. When I meet with Palestinians, I try to understand what their lives look like and why. I am able to see these things; I am able to consider giving up territories23 or to make the effort towards understanding them, too. This is an opening but the participants don’t always come prepared for this. They think we are occupiers so why should we want to talk to them? I’m being a bit cynical now, but this is people’s approach.
On the Israeli side, during the conference I participated in, I didn’t encounter so much prejudice as reactions to the initial encounter such as, “Why are they always complaining?” “They’re just trying to propagandize!” “They are here to complain.” “The only thing important to them is that we give and give, to see how much we are willing to give them, then what they want is for us to feel sorry for them.” These responses come up at first, and then they lead to more profound dialogue, which is more difficult.
How do people react to your work?
Initially people are very curious. People also make jokes… when I don’t come [to class] people think I’ve gone to assist peace talks! That’s just a joke… People are very curious about it from all over the political spectrum. I am studying politics and government at Ben Gurion University so obviously people there are curious about it. People are always asking me, “Did they do this?” “What did you do?” “What happened there?” I find myself talking about the meetings quite often, without having been the one to initiate it, with people who are relatively right-wing. When I joined in the organization’s activities, it was more noticeable for me. If related matters come up or if we watch a film during a class, I feel people come up to me and ask me, “What do you think about that?” “What does your organization do?” “What do you do there?” I feel like it is depicted as a very active place, and we really are active. It is very interesting because we go beyond normal conversations, for example during classes we go more in depth.
We meet with people who want to take part in this activity. People come up to me, and up to us, and ask, “How can I contribute to this?” This is amazing because there is no lack of organizations or activities that promote coexistence and dialogue, especially on our side. People who want to come have no problem finding a place, but YIFC evokes people’s curiosity because it was created by people our age. We are non-partisan; it’s funny to call us supra-political, but really we aren’t linked to any party or to any political headquarters, it’s just us. Through YIFC I get to know many people and places, as well as accessing knowledge on different levels: from students (from my field), people in my life and from lecturers. In my department, we now have an internship program in politics meant for students in their final year of study at one of the organizations in the Be’er Sheva area. I asked to intern at YIFC so that during the internship I was meant to be doing anyhow I wouldn’t have to leave my own organization. This was an unusual request, yet the department did everything to make it possible. Though this required a long bureaucratic process, people really accepted this work and the organization within the educational program, and that is out of the ordinary to be interning there. I was surprised because although it may seem common enough, it wasn’t.
What is your family’s reaction to this work?
It doesn’t surprise them, I mean the activity doesn’t; they are very appreciative and proud. I have my family’s support no matter what I choose. They are also very interested. It is more difficult for friends to understand, friends from home rather than from university, because it is hard for them to understand what it all means. My family is very supportive.
How does your work promote an end to the conflict?
First of all, this work exposes more and more people to this field, to the fact that it is possible to talk. From this kind of work more people are hearing about this kind of activity and take part, more activities take place. People feel like they are deliberating the question, at the end of the day, has the [dialogical] process succeeded? I’m pretty confident that what begins at the bottom will eventually reach the top, especially given that people are busy working in an environment that does not belong exclusively to activists. It will sink in and the day will come.
About civil society: people are always saying that when there is peace civil society needs to be prepared, people should know. For clarity’s sake, I will mention the ways in which this work contributes [to peace]. First of all, it affects what happens; what starts at the bottom will rise to the top. Second, in terms of what will take place later, I think we need to invest as much work as possible in what will take place on the “day after” [peace] and how we envision it to be. You can sign an agreement officially but from our experience here, we know that at the end of the day it’s meaningless. There needs to be something structured in society; this needs to happen among decision makers too, but they [civil society] are not the people who signed the agreement, so this seems important to me.
I took part in a discussion at the American Consulate with a well-known [Palestinian] activist and suddenly she said, “I don’t understand. We are working and working and we have activities, yet you continue building the fence!”24 I am involved but not because I think my work will lead to peace with the Palestinians or that tomorrow the wall will fall (the fence, or whatever it’s called). This is an important process, affecting the people around me, and we need to work both horizontally and vertically. By vertically I mean [numerically] that we need to affect as many people as possible, keeping in mind that it isn’t going to happen tomorrow. When I say horizontally, I mean that when it does happen it will be in a much more stable environment because it will be across society.
You mentioned that often Palestinians expect the meetings to lead to political actions while Israelis expect personal relations. How do you address this at your meetings?
I’ll tell you based on my experience from the conference I participated in. I think that at the end, once we overcame the small explosion we managed to clarify that we very much want for things to work out and that although at present we lack influence, if we continue working together, there is a chance that we can affect the situation. I think this message sunk in towards the end. However, I don’t know whether it filtered through completely, meaning they will continue to harbor expectations but continue to work together because there is no point in stopping now. It’s a match between optimism, which says this is what will help, and the fact that we are talking to people and the effect is personal rather than political. We walk the line and I think it is because we want to create a change, but this will always be there, we are working with it. Not everything can be bridged.
You are reaching out to Israeli young professionals and academics yet you said the process needs to be bottom-up.
When I talked about the work beginning at the level of the people, at the bottom, I meant what should be happening generally speaking. I think that in YIFC we stress the people situated in between – between bottom and top, meaning leadership. When we talk to people at universities, we welcome people who aren’t students if they are very active and are influential, because I am searching for a way to influence decision makers. We are addressing the middle, there is no doubt.
Before I joined YIFC the people there took part in a project with Palestinian kids and took them on guided tours to the Museum of Islamic Art in order to demonstrate that Israelis don’t hate Islam, how Israelis perceive Islam and their respect for it. That was a social activity. We had an idea that we would begin a film project using films that deal with the conflict’s core issues and discuss them in different groups within Israeli society, and outside it, as a series of discussions. We are focusing on the people in between, with the assumption that each organization focuses on their specific forte. There are so many organizations so we have to decide what we think is right, what is important for us, and what we can focus on so we can do that.
Before I joined YIFC the people there took part in a project with Palestinian kids and took them on guided tours to the Museum of Islamic Art in order to demonstrate that Israelis don’t hate Islam, how Israelis perceive Islam and their respect for it. That was a social activity. We had an idea that we would begin a film project using films that deal with the conflict’s core issues and discuss them in different groups within Israeli society, and outside it, as a series of discussions. We are focusing on the people in between, with the assumption that each organization focuses on their specific forte. There are so many organizations so we have to decide what we think is right, what is important for us, and what we can focus on so we can do that.
Where are you in relation to the mainstream of Israeli society?
In terms of political views? In terms of me being a woman, an educated student? In terms of my political views, my direction is left. I don’t think I’m part of the radical left-wing but I am certainly part of the left-wing. People at the university perceive me as more left-wing than people at YIFC do, but I am definitely left-wing. I don’t know whether this is something that happened at YIFC or whether it is more personal, but I have been exposed to the right-wing discourse. This creates dialogue not only with Palestinians but also with what is taking place on the other side of my society. It’s a parallel process. This happens less within the framework of YIFC but I think it will and is already contributing to my knowledge in this field.
Initially when I came to my first conference at YIFC I had a certain opinion. I considered my opinions to be very concrete: I am from x society and this is where I originated from. Now that I am a little more exposed to the right-wing [in Israel], to people there and to what happens there, it doesn’t make me any less left-wing. It reflects a more profound left-wing approach. What I view I do bearing in mind the other side in society, and then I have a clearer stand on what is going on there and what I think about it. I don’t get fired up or speak in slogans. After having checked, criticized and tried things, I have a more comprehensive approach, I don’t know how else to define it.
How does the political situation affect your work?
In terms of logistic matters, it is constantly affecting my work, and it is difficult. There were Palestinian participants who arrived late to our conference because they weren’t given permits25 and they arrived a few days late. They could have contributed much during the first days of the conference but didn’t arrive. Them not passing, being detained and then having to travel through Jordan… these are unpleasant things to hear. I understand the need for security; people talk about the political and the personal levels. Politically, I want there to be security but on the personal level, a person is standing in front of you after having run around in the world for three days, yet he came and made every effort to come.
How does that affect the meeting?
During the conference it has an effect because it is the beginning and dialogue begins starting at that point, with you needing to apologize for something. It is also related to the part where people let everything out. I know what they go through even though I have never experienced it or encountered situations they have, personally, and meeting with this person is powerful even though I wasn’t surprised at what happened to him or to them (it happened to more than one person) but it comes at the first part, when you unpack all your emotional baggage and then begin to talk. For example, at a conference we organized at Ben Gurion University two weeks ago we scheduled a discussion; we didn’t know whether everyone would get permits until the last minute, it is such a bureaucratic process – you need to talk to the right people… it was in the computer but then there was campus security.
When you asked me why we don’t have meetings here and why we go abroad, it is really surprising because it really doesn’t sound appealing to travel abroad for this. I prefer to go abroad in order to travel, not to sit together in one room and talk all day. I would prefer to do that in my home. There [abroad] everything is quiet, here is where it happens, the languages, this is our life.
Getting back to the conference’s effects, it is hard to deal with the fact that everyone goes back home to their life and wonders how it will affect them in the future. You asked me how I get along with people around me. Here I’m home, not cut off; I’m home and have not been carefully cut out of this context with scissors and pasted in a different reality where everyone is Dutch and says, “play nicely”.
What happened when you got back from the conference?
It was euphoric or maybe a shock. I know I felt both these things, I know there are participants on the Palestinian side who didn’t tell people they were going to talk with Israelis, so that means dealing with something else, a different image. I met some of the people after the conference. Two days after we got back from the conference there was a bombing. People said, “You see! Is this why you go talk to them?” I don’t take this very seriously; it’s part of what exists around us here.
How do you respond to someone who says that?
It depends on how cynical the person is being and how close I am to them. I don’t mind getting into a political discussion about it but if it comes up in the living room with somebody distant I don’t get into it. If it is a more profound situation, I do get into it. In many situations you need to explain things.
I’m very pleased with this matter of becoming more mature and becoming more capable of discussing these issues. I can’t separate what I have gone through personally from what happened to me in YIFC. I am able to talk to people from the right-wing or with Palestinians without being harsh; this is novel. When I used to discuss matters with people all my ambitions would come spilling out because when I talked, I talked. I would say everything I thought and I couldn’t imagine how people could think differently. I learned how to explain my opinion and the explanation for it. I learned about reaching the core of a political argument. I really enjoy this kind of conversation. I get re-interested in those issues when I discuss issues with people at the university, with friends from home, with ordinary people, or with people I talk to about YIFC.
You need to feel like you have encountered reality, even if it’s only for a split second. My personal reality is very nice. I really like my life and I can see how easily I could overlook the conflict’s existence. I mean, it isn’t possible completely because Israeli society encounters the conflict, but I live in Be’er Sheva, my parents live up north… I would have been sad by thinking about the situation even without knowing what is taking place on the other side or a half hour from my home. I felt like I had been slapped, in a way. Previously, I thought I would surely be an easy candidate. I had to see for myself that the gaps were much wider -- in terms of the Palestinians’ perception of the discussion or reality or in terms of us being the two sides of the conflict. We are very close to each other physically, yet completely different, in terms of mentality and culture. There are slight nuances and different frameworks, though we have always found what we have in common. I was surprised to discover things are so different. After being involved for two years, I know now that if there weren’t such differences, there wouldn’t be anything to work on, so it is a good thing because we have something we can deal with. I was surprised by the gaps, the sheer immensity of it and suddenly I understood that this is what our lives are. Of course, my reality is my life, but you need to learn about other scripts that exist in other places.
I want to go back and talk about how the politics affects our work in the field. It means that people don’t leave or cannot reach us. I haven’t encountered a situation where people refuse to come to a meeting; I don’t think others have either. There was only what happened at the conference (I mentioned it before) and that was for the best, ultimately. I think it was positive, it was certainly an experience.
What makes it a positive experience?
It taught us a lot. It was real dialogue, it’s amazing to talk with people for seven days about all the issues in the working groups. We talked about different issues in working groups and then went out to eat, drink… it gets personal. We spent an intensive week together but only after a week did we get to really talk -- because of what happened. It demonstrated how people perceive me because before I didn’t understand their perception. Many issues were unveiled then; they told us how they truly view us and what they think of us, and it really annoyed us. That was a surprise because I’m supposed to be left-wing! Why did I get so annoyed at them? They did and that surprised me! I think I learned something because I remember this situation more than the remainder of the conference. I can barely recall what went on during the rest of the conference but I clearly remember what people said in this situation.
What part do you remember from that conversation?
It involved getting things out in the open and then calming down. When we arrived that morning they were sitting reading newspapers and one Palestinian girl yelled, “Look what happened!” I’m cynical, but it is very much a show. When we heard what had happened in Gaza we wanted to be with them, support them and tell them that we offer them our sympathy, but it was like a performance. They sat with newspapers and cried in front of us to show us their pain. I know I am being slightly sardonic but I was bothered by it being a show. People said some things that were over the edge, like “How can I be sure tomorrow your brother won’t come and shoot my mom?”
There are also things that separate the personal from the political. I remember one of the positive things said during this messy situation. One of the Palestinian participants stood up and said, “Guys, calm down. Try to remember that everyone had one goal in coming here. Nobody came to have a good time in Amsterdam. We all came to talk and to meet with people from the other side, so what are you doing?” It was a relief to hear this from someone on their side, with all the power struggles and vibes there were. I remember what I said. I stressed my being there, me, as in Michal Eskenazi, not anybody else; I wasn’t there as a former soldier, not even as an Israeli. Leave all those things aside and let’s begin from there. Of course you can’t leave everything aside, but that is what I can remember. I also remember stories people told me.
What is this conflict about?
I think this conflict is mostly about myths and symbols, theirs and ours, and less about what is happening on the ground. I’m thinking about the topics that are considered problematic, putting aside the others -- such as checkpoints, because I think that’s a different matter. Issues that usually come up during negotiations are Jerusalem, the refugees,26 borders, and security. From what I have read and researched, if you were to separate these issues from the symbolic and cultural framework they are wrapped in, it would be possible to resolve them. We were raised on this conflict and its myths; we were told what is true and what isn’t, who is right and who isn’t. This goes for both sides, and now it’s difficult to repair things. We were raised on history as it is in the eyes of our teachers and it takes time to begin to think in a different way – maybe it doesn’t necessarily have to be this way, maybe things can be fixed. The question is, is it really possible? That is the major part of the work, and like anything else, requires time, unlike a political process, which is much simpler. This process exists, we can see it. For example, when I compare how certain things were treated when the state was established and now, who would have thought people would say such things five or ten years ago.
Can you give an example?
The refugees, Jerusalem, these are things that nobody questions nowadays. I studied these issues; the approach in negotiations [on the part of Israeli negotiators] used to be, “There is nothing to discuss, no such problem exists. There are no refugees!” Now it is defined as a problem.
Who now defines it as a problem?
The Palestinians have always claimed this problem exists. I am referring to [Israeli] ministers here, even in public discourse; statements in the media represent or affect what the public thinks. Suddenly people are aware of the “demographic threat”: how do we deal with it? Suddenly people talk of it as a problem, it entered their discourse. An example of such a symbol is when you compare the number of articles [in the Israelis press] dealing with the [Palestinian] refugees in the early nineties and after 1997.
This is a ten year period. We [Israelis] have developed myths and stories for ourselves. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in them or something understandable but interests guide this symbolism. This is how I see it. On the other hand, I think whoever wrote the history book I study, or better yet, the Palestinians’ history textbooks, has a well defined and vested interest, mentioning an issue only if it seems beneficial for their side.
I can give you a personal example that concerns my family. My parents made aliyah27 and we have arguments over many things, but I understand that one of the reasons they made aliyah is Zionism,28 straight up. The Zionism they were raised with is something that I can direct my anger at, but this is what brought them here from Argentina. I always think about this one example that drives me crazy: the myth of Masada29. This drives me nuts! Whenever I visit there I get angry over the idea of what Masada has been made to be and the distortion of what this place is and what took place there, yet on the other side I can see the process that transformed Masada into what it is now.
I mean, Masada wasn’t a myth cherished by Judaism in the two thousand years of exile but relatively new. Yitzhak Lamdan,30 a poet, wrote something like, “Masada shall not fall again”. Now these were a bunch of fanatics who committed suicide on the top of a mountain, and it is questionable whether the account is even true. I haven’t studied the matter but based on my reading, this was a group of extremists that committed suicide and it drives me crazy that I was taken there on a school trip! It drives me crazy! It infuriated me when I was in school too! The connection is this myth. A nation needs to be strengthened using these means -- my father would get angry at me calling them myths, but these are necessary means. This is coming back at us like a boomerang. Of course not all these myths are directly concerned with the conflict. Maybe the myth of Masada isn’t directly linked but it’s an example of a myth deeply rooted and shaped. Shaping a national myth is a process and it is shattered by the other side when it in turn starts to build a nation and wants to establish a state.
I think that the clash occurs there, more than in the technical aspects. Along with that, you have suicide attacks31 and checkpoints… for the Palestinian side this is deeply rooted as a source of suffering, while for us it is the suicide attacks. I am trying to keep to the middle. These things fan the flames of the conflict and make it even harder to emerge from it.
Sometimes people say that Israelis who go to meetings don’t view their national identity as central while Palestinians who go do. Do you agree with this based on your meetings?
I think that it is the other way around. The moment I leave the country, even if I am the most fanatic left-wing person, with them I will not be that. I am much more part of my [national] position because I am “facing” the other side. I think I am facing a dilemma because while I don’t have a problem with my sense of nationalism, I am debating what nationalism actually is and what it is comprised of. How is it that I am who I am and think what I am thinking? This is not related to the conflict, but obviously it is affected by “post” theories32. My dilemma is that I want to know what brought me to this point, yet this is where I want to be in my thinking. I am debating over the question of, where is nationalism rooted and how it was created? This is the key question and bigger and better people have studied it. In terms of your question, I don’t agree because in my experience it is the other way around, I find I’m very understanding of it [nationalism] because everyone presents what is happening on their side, so you want to bring what is on yours, to show that too.
What do you think about former peace processes?
I don’t think they failed completely, even though we’re disappointed with the outcome. Fundamentally, they made us go through a very significant process and changed many things here, in terms of the social change, which is much harder to create. We are in the midst of doing this now. During the conference at the university in Amsterdam, my discussion group was sitting in a room that had an exhibition of newspapers from all over the world. One of the Israeli newspapers was from 1996 and the headline read: “Peres: Palestinian state will not be established”. We read this a few years later and thought, did Peres actually say such a thing? To think he did… Rabin was also explicitly in favor of establishing a Palestinian Authority33 but not a state. Look at the crazy step we have taken! This is the positive part. No doubt the process failed because so many mistakes (based on earlier mistakes) were made.
Which peace process are you referring to?
I studied the inside process – how it was run – because I studied what went on behind the scenes during negotiations at Camp David,34 Taba35 and Stockholm36 during the years 1997-2001. I learned how things are really run and it offered many of the answers I sought. Besides the political games and the fact that sometimes the political powers were the determining force instead of the educated and knowledgeable people, only the near future was considered. People were thinking only a second ahead without looking to see what was taking place on the other side, without investigating the scenario for what would happen there. I’m not claiming here that the Palestinian side was blameless; I am criticizing our side and saying, things were being run in a very disappointing and generally amateur-like manner, without thinking ahead. Nobody was listening to people who were able to think a little beyond the immediate present. Nobody listened to the other side.
It is somewhat similar to how I arrived at the conference in Amsterdam. It was clear to me that we needed to “make peace” without understanding what I wanted. I didn’t really try to put myself in the other side’s shoes or to understand where things were coming from -- from the most mundane details to the level of politics. We are all so used to thinking that we know what we are doing, only we don’t. This occurs during negotiations too; errors, only errors. Okay, not only mistakes, no, but so many mistakes were made: tactical errors, conceptual errors, errors made in the decision of who to send as representatives and the reasons for this. Studying this was an experience. I assisted Dr. Joel Peters in his research. I was stunned and I think even he was astonished, and he is much more knowledgeable and educated than I am. He has dealt with this issue a lot and is very experienced in this field. We wondered why they hadn’t considered these things; it’s so typically Israeli.
Who would you want to see on the negotiation team?
I would begin with people who are fluent in the topics being discussed. I mean, the delegations split into working groups, so let them send people who have dealt with this issues prior to their arrival at negotiations. This doesn’t happen. There are people who do study these issues, who prepare scenarios and consider them carefully. There are many plans and options designed for use that are constantly being updated as matters evolve and this capacity isn’t used enough. What can you do, this is politics and I’m not naïve; I understand what is happening but we need to be aided by the force of people who understand these matters.
What is the ideal situation that you envision here for the future?
I think I’m overly skeptical. I can’t envision cooperation blossoming here; we won’t be establishing the European Union37. Ideally, we would initially have some peace of mind and they would too. This is not only in terms of security; for me it would mean that I would be able to live in this region and envision living here twenty and thirty years from now, in all aspects, without everything spinning constantly. In terms of the conflict, they [the Palestinians] would have the same.
Is that possible?
Good question. Ultimately, yes. Two points are given, to be connected by one line. The question is how is that line drawn? It could be drawn as a straight line, that would be the shortest way but obviously that isn’t happening. The question is, how many more turns will it take until it reaches the ending point. The more problematic it is, the more the line snakes; the simpler it is, the less time it will take. I think this is what it depends on. Right now we are twisting our way around. We’re twisting around, but I’m optimistic!
What does the word peace mean to you?
It is a word worn with use; it is more of an expression than a word. I perceive it as that sense of calm. I used to guide tours in the Negev38; we talked about the border with Egypt. Now, people here tend to talk about flourishing peace; great, I’m all in favor, but relations such as they are with Egypt seem fine too. In the meanwhile… we have to get out of this mess.
Do you think there can be peace here?
Yes, ultimately. I don’t know whether I will be around to witness it. I think it depends on everything around us; it depends on us and much on the Palestinians, obviously. On each side there are internal issues, regardless of external relations and interaction with the other side. After that, it depends a lot on what is happening outside. I am scared, or I reflect on what will happen the day we cease to fill the headlines in foreign press, newspapers abroad in Europe and the US; what will happen when it ceases to interest people there? What will become of us? I am sure this is very influential, so it depends on this too.
What is the role that external actors play here?
They play a role that is partly necessary. It’s an over-simplification to say this, but it’s like two brothers fighting who go to their mother to be the mediator. I don’t think that the outside actors are actually our mothers but rather a third party. Yes of course, we could have just been talking to each other and in theory we don’t need someone to pass the microphone around, but at present this isn’t happening. Right now external agents are offering incentives, maybe this will encourage us because it seems that the notion of peace and quiet is not sufficient so we need help from the outside, and there are parties that can fulfill this role.
When you say incentives, do you mean economic support?
It all revolves around money, what can you do… Yes, I mean economic support as well as political support, trade agreements. We need political agreements more than cultural agreements here. We are part of a larger system, in which we play a role and which affects us. I don’t know whether the mediators up until now or the future mediators will be able to function. I am critical of the mediators in past processes, just as I am critical of the way negotiations were conducted. I think we can also ask whether Europe should be involved, but that is a different topic. I think they should because offering the sides incentives will assist negotiations.
What are your hopes for the future?
I feel like I’m being repetitive but I think that I really would like to be a neighbor and not an enemy. This may sound overly optimistic (but it’s okay if we are talking about hopes). I don’t want to keep feeling that things need to change with the urgency I sense now. Of course there will always be things that need to change but I don’t want to be part of a situation that has to change with such immediacy. I know we, Israeli society and the state, are also suffering greatly because of the current situation but I don’t want for us to occupy someone else’s land; I don’t want to live with that, nor do I want to live with the repercussions. I don’t think this is the way things should be and it makes me angry. Going back to my hopes for a sense of calm, I want to feel this and share it with the people around me.
I want to go back to international agents and their involvement in the conflict. What do you think people abroad don’t know and should?
I witnessed this during the conferences: first of all, I want them to know and to gain some experience. As an Israeli, I experience the shock in meeting with Palestinians. I don’t want to think about what people who don’t live here see, viewing us through the lens of journalism/literature/academia. I think there is a big difference between them and people who have visited and lived here for a year or two. They are Europeans and it is no less of a shocking experience -- I don’t mean this negatively so let’s call it “exhilarating”. I’m saying this based on encounters with people from abroad, European organizations, people who came to the Territories to volunteer -- it means really being in the field.
What else do I think they should know? I think this is the key. Once you know, you are familiar with the power balance, with Palestinian society, Israeli society and the disparity, you can come to terms with the situation and not offer to shower us with money and wait for the gaps to close. People need to understand what the needs are and how to give what we need, who to deal with, and learn about timing, which is so important. Negotiation theory focuses on people and timing.
Is there anything you would like to add?
I don’t think so.
End.
[Follow up November 2006: Michal finished her BA degree in Politics and Government and is currently pursuing a Masters in this field. She works at Ben Gurion University at the Centre for the Study of European Society and Politics and continues to be active in YIFC.]
Notes
We have done our best to provide accurate, fair yet succinct footnotes to help you navigate the interviews. Our research team comprises more than 6 individuals, including Palestinians, Israelis and North Americans. Still, we recognize that these notes cannot capture the full complexity of this contested conflict. Therefore, we encourage you to seek additional sources of information, we welcome your feedback and appreciate your openness.
Karmiel
A city located in the Beit Hakerem Valley, which separates the upper and lower regions of the Galilee in northern Israel. It has a population of approximately 43,500.
1
Nitzana
is an educational community located in the south of Israel in the Negev Desert, approximately 70 km south of Beer Sheva, on the border between Israel and Egypt. The Jewish Agency helped to establish Nitzana as a Zionistic community to teach about the desert in experiential ways while promoting social pluralism by bringing together religious and secular Israeli youth with youth from the Former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and the Diaspora. See: http://www.nitzana.org.il/1WHOWEARE.htm and http://www.jafi.org.il/youthaliyah/nitzana.asp
Knesset
The legislature of the State of Israel, located in Jerusalem, and consisting of 120 members. Knesset members are known as “MKs.” The Government of the State of Israel must be approved by a majority vote of the Knesset. See the Knesset Web site at http://www.knesset.gov.il/index.html
Euro-Med Youth Platform
Aims to bring young people from thirty-five countries (including Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) together. The youth platform aims to establish “an environment of tolerance and mutual understanding, facilitating networking between us assisting in the capacity building of our organizations, increasing our participation, sharing of relevant information, and exchanging good practice.” See: http://www.euromedp.org/en/home.asp
AKIM
"AKIM" is the National Association for the Habilitation of the Mentally Handicapped in Israel. AKIM Israel is the national association that represents 30,000 mentally challenged people and their families. AKIM was founded in 1951 by a group of parents to mentally handicapped children. See: http://www.akim.org.il/
YIFC
An empowerment program aimed at supporting young Israeli leaders who seek to “take an active role in shaping Israel’s future and, specifically, its relations with its Palestinian and European neighbors.” See Young Israeli Forum for Cooperation. 10 November 2007 http://www.yifc.org/
Middle East 2020
See: http://www.europe2020.org/en/section_global/090304.htm
Clingendael Institute
also known as the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, encourages understanding of international relations through various workshops and training programs, research projects, and published works. See: http://www.clingendael.nl
Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel
Also known as “Palestinian citizens of Israel,” “Palestinian Israelis,” “1948 Palestinians,” or “Arab Israelis.” Refers to those Palestinians and their descendents who remained in the area that became the State of Israel in 1948. They were granted Israeli citizenship. Until 1966 most of them were subjected to military rule that restricted their movement and some of their rights. The tension in Israel between its “Jewish” and “democratic” nature has historically meant that many Arab minority rights have been neglected. According to Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, since 1967, “The state [has] practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation.” While their standing in Israel has improved since Israel’s independence, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel experience periodic persecution, felt strongest during the October 2000 riots in which 13 Palestinian Arab Israelis were killed in ten days. In 2004, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel made up approximately 18-19% of the Israeli population. They live within the State of Israel, participate in government and hold Israeli citizenship, but do not serve in the military. See Lustick, Ian S. “Palestinian Citizens of Israel.” Philip Mattar, ed. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. New York: Facts on File, 2005 and Bligh, Alexander, ed. The Israeli Palestinians: an Arab Minority in the Jewish State. London: Frank Cass, 2003. See also Adala and Mossawa online at http://www.adalah.org/eng/ and http://www.mossawacenter.org
Bedouin
Derived from the Arabic badawi, meaning “desert-dweller,” Bedouin is a general name for Arab nomadic groups. Once characterized by a nomadic and rural lifestyle, the Bedouins in Israel have largely become sedentary as a result of government policies toward them. Beginning in the 1960’s, the State of Israel has attempted to settle the Bedouin population in planned communities. Two major disputes between the Bedouin communities and the State of Israel persist: land ownership—many Bedouin do not have ownership papers for the land on which they have traditionally lived—and unrecognized villages. Unrecognized villages are those villages not recognized by the State of Israel although they generally predate the existence of the State, resulting in living conditions that do not benefit from state support for basic services and infrastructure. There are approximately 70,000 Bedouin living in 46 such unrecognized villages. The Bedouin population in Israel numbers approximately 200,000. They live primarily in the Negev desert and the Galilee. The Bedouin of the Negev are Israel’s most impoverished group, with the highest rates of unemployment. See Kimmerling, Baruch and Joel S. Migdal. The Palestinian People: a History. London: Harvard University Press, 2003. See online Lynfield, Ben. “In Israel’s Desert, A Fight for Land,” The Christian Science Monitor. 20 Feb. 2003. 21 June 2007 See also “The Bedouins in Israel: A Special Report.” Nov. 1998. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel. 21 June 2001
Second Intifada
Arabic for “shaking off.” The second intifada is sometimes called the Al-Aqsa (Aksa or ‘Aqsa) Intifada or the Armed Intifada. It refers to the recent Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The second intifada began in September 2000 following the breakdown of diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and immediately following Ariel Sharon’s (then, an Israeli opposition leader) police escorted visit to the Temple Mount/ Haram al-Sharif. Sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif and their holy sites (including the al-Aqsa mosque). Sharon was highlighting a major point of contention in negotiations as both Jews and Muslims greatly revere the area. There is debate as to whether the second intifada was a spontaneous uprising catalyzed by Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, or a planned revolt by certain Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat. Unlike the first intifada, the second intifada involved suicide bombings and more use of arms, in addition to mass rallies, general strikes and various other strategies. The exact end date of the second intifada is ambiguous. Some claim it is ongoing. See also First Intifada. See Hartley, Cathy, ed. A Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations, 2nd ed. London and New York: Europa Publications, 2004. See online “The second Intifada.” 8 December 2003. AlJazeera.net. November 2007 http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=187 and “Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline.” 29 Sept 2004. BBC News Online. 9 November 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3677206.stm
Checkpoints
Roadblocks or military installations used by security forces to control and restrict pedestrian movement and vehicle traffic. The Israeli army makes widespread use of checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in order to control the movement of Palestinians between Palestinian cities and villages and between the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. Checkpoints can be large and semi-permanent structures resembling simple basic border crossings (such as the Kalandia checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem or the Hawara checkpoint between Nablus and Ramallah) or small, temporary barriers on roadways or outside towns or villages. The security forces at a checkpoint exercise total control over movement through the checkpoint. Depending upon the location of the checkpoint, soldiers may and often do check the identity papers of every vehicle passenger and/or pedestrian who wishes to pass through. At certain checkpoints, mostly those that delineate Areas A, B and C, soldiers refuse passage to all who have not obtained permits from the Israeli military’s Civil Administration in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Palestinians and Israeli observers cite frequent, if not routine, incidences of delay and harassment of Palestinian civilians at checkpoints, regardless of the status of their papers. There are currently checkpoints at the entry and exit points of every large Palestinian populated area in the West Bank, on every major road within the West Bank, and at every crossing point on the Green Line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in addition to many smaller checkpoints within the West Bank. According to the Israeli Army, a checkpoint is a “security mechanism to prevent the passage of terrorists from PA territory into Israel while maintaining both Israeli and Palestinian daily routine,” used to “facilitate rapid passage of Palestinians while providing maximal security to Israeli citizens.” See also “closures” in the glossary. See Keshet, Yehudit Kirstein. CheckpointWatch: Testimonies from Occupied Palestine. London: Zed Books, 2006. For facts, figures, and maps on the web, see “Machsom Watch.” Women for Human Rights. 21 June 2007 and Smith, Chris. “Closure: The Daily Reality of Israel’s Occupation.” Middle East Report Online. 27 August 2001. 21 June 2007and “Restrictions on Movement.” B’Tselem. 21 June 2007
IDF
Acronym for Israel Defense Forces, the State of Israel's military.
Jerusalem
Known as Al Quds (“The Holy”) in Arabic and Yerushalayim or Zion in Hebrew. A city located in the center of both Israel and the West Bank portion of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Home to approximately 730,000 people from all three monotheistic religions, as well as sacred sites from these faiths within close proximity, including the Western Wall, the al Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Green Line, or the 1949 cease-fire line between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, demarcates the unofficial boundary between Israel and the West Bank, and divides Jerusalem. Israel immediately declared Jerusalem as its capital in 1948, and enshrined this in its Basic Laws in 1980. Palestinians aspire to declare Jerusalem as the capital of a nascent Palestine. Following the War of 1967, Israel extended its sovereignty to the Eastern half of the city, including the Old City and the holy shrines, which were controlled by Jordan from 1948. Israel “unified” East and West Jerusalem in its 1980 “Jerusalem Law”, leaving borders undefined. Most countries do not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, an opinion codified in UN Security Council Resolution 478. Rather, they regard Jerusalem’s status as undetermined, pending final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. See: “Jerusalem” Kumaraswamy, P.R. Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, 2006. To read the text of the 1980 Basic Law see Basic Law-Jerusalem-Capital of Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 19 June 2007.
Jerusalem ID
(also known as “blue ID’s”) are required for Palestinians to live and work in the city of Jerusalem. In addition, they provide municipal services, health insurance, and building permits yet do not allow one to vote in Israeli elections nor hold an Israeli passport. Palestinian residents who live in East Jerusalem are able to travel freely throughout the West Bank and Israel, which is prohibited to those living in the West Bank and Gaza. In order to reside legally in Jerusalem, Palestinians who do not have Jerusalem ID’s have to apply with the Interior Minister, who can refuse applications without justification. Numerous restrictions are placed on Palestinian residents with Jerusalem ID’s that do not apply to Israeli citizens or Jewish permanent residents. Restrictions include losing your residency if you travel abroad without a re-entry visa, living abroad for longer than seven years (this includes the West Bank), marrying a spouse who is not a resident and does not apply for family reunification, and establishing residency elsewhere outside of Jerusalem (a consequence of the 1994 “Center of Life” policy adopted by the Israeli Government). Only children whose fathers hold Jerusalem identity cards are eligible to obtain resident status. Those without Jerusalem ID’s are denied educational and health services in Jerusalem. Between 1967 (Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem) and April 2001, approximately 6,444 identity cards have been confiscated from Palestinians by the Israeli Government. See: http://www.passia.org/publications/bulletins/english-jerusalem/pages/page7.pdf, http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicaldocuments/413.shtml and http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/details.php?cat=2&id=31
Europe 2020
See: http://www.europe2020.org/en/home.htm
Erasmus
See: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/erasmus_en.html
Floerscheimer Institute
See: http://www.fips.org.il/
Yuli Tamir
(1954-) served as Minister of Immigrant Absorption from August 1999 until March 2001. Elected to the Knesset in 2003, she served as a Member of the Knesset Finance, Constitution, Law and Justice, and Education, Culture and Sports Committees, as well as on the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee for Uncovering Corruption in the Government System of Israel. In May 2006 Yuli Tamir was appointed Minister of Education. In November 2006, she was also designated acting Minister of Science, Culture and Sports. A Professor of Political Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, Tamir also was a research fellow at Harvard University, Princeton University and the Hartman Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. She is one of the founders of the Peace Now Movement in Israel in addition to serving on the boards of the Jerusalem Foundation and the Israel Institute of Democracy. See: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/3/Yael%20-Yuli-%20Tamir
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
See http://www.bgu.ac.il/
Settlement
A settlement is a Jewish community usually existing outside the internationally accepted boundaries of the State of Israel. Those ideologically in support of them do not call them “settlements.” The settler movement began following the war of 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights in Syria, and the Sinai in Egypt. Settlements are most controversial when they are built within the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, which some Israelis refer to as Judea and Samaria or as “disputed territories,”—often on land confiscated from Palestinians. Proponents of the settler movement say that settlement on these lands is a divine right, mandated by religious texts, and part of the Zionist imperative to settle Eretz Yisrael or The Land of Israel (see Zionism). Less ideological proponents regard it as a security necessity for Israel. Opponents argue that such settlements are illegal under international law, that they annex Palestinian-owned land, and preclude the final status of disputed borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state. By and large, settlements receive government funding, as well as military and infrastructural support. The course of the separation barrier frequently juts into the West Bank in order to protect Jewish settlements within this territory. In 2005, the Likud government initiated the withdrawal of 8000 Israeli settlements from Gaza and from a handful of settlements in the West Bank. Approximately 135 settlements remain in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), with a population of 419,000 in 2005. See Gorenberg, Gershon. The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements 1967-1977. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Masalha, Nur Imperial Israel And The Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion (Pluto Press: 2000). See online “Land Expropriation and Settlements.” B’Tselem. 9 November 2007 http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/
Likud Party
Hebrew for “union”. One of two traditional political parties in Israel, founded in 1973. Likud tends toward the conservative, center-right of the political spectrum. The Likud grew out of the “Revisionist” movement of Ze’ev Jabotinsky as the main right-wing opposition to the dominant Labor Zionist Movement and Labor Party. Its early leaders, such as Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin, had roots in the Stern Gang and Irgun—two organizations that employed militant tactics against the British and occasionally Arab inhabitants during the time of the British Mandate. Likud was ideologically committed to establishing Jewish sovereignty over all of British Mandatory Palestine and, until recently, ideologically opposed to any territorial compromise with the Palestinians (“Land for Peace”). Its first electoral victory came in 1977. Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin, during the first Likud mandate, signed a peace treaty with Egypt, which involved Israeli military and civilian withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula following the “Land for Peace” model. Begin subsequently launched the War of 1982, with Ariel Sharon serving as Minister of Defense. In 1991 Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir headed the Israeli negotiation team at the Madrid Conference, spearheading Arab-Israeli direct negotiations. More recent Likud leaders, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, have led neo-liberalist economic measures. Dispute over Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 led Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to leave the party and establish the Kadima (Hebrew, “forward”) party, which rivaled the Likud and won in the 2006 elections. See online “Likud.” Knesset. 7 September 2007. http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=13
Occupied Palestinian Territories
Also known as the “Territories,” “East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza”, the “Occupied Territories” or as “Judea, Samaria and Gaza.” In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this term generally refers to two non-contiguous territories captured by Israel following the war of 1967 (“June War,” “al-Nakba,” or “Six-Day War”), but does not usually include the Golan Heights. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are considered occupied by much of the international community and are treated as such by many international legal instruments. The Territories, or some part of, are slated to be the basis for an independent Palestine. Some members of the Israeli government refer to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as “disputed territory,” while certain right-wing factions in Israel consider the territory an integral part of biblical Israel and thus modern political Israel. See “International Law and ‘Occupied’/ ‘Disputed’ Territory Debate” and “War of 1967.”
Separation Barrier
Also termed the “wall, separation wall, security fence and Apartheid Wall”, and “annexation wall,” by some. A long structure of connected walls and fences that separates Israel from parts of the West Bank, and restricts the movement of Palestinians from the West Bank into Israel. It runs both along the Green Line and within the West Bank. Critics and proponents disagree over the intent behind the structure, its route, and its name. Begun in 2002 as an alleged reaction to the violence of the second intifada, its construction is still in progress. Israel claims security concerns necessitate its construction, and cite decreases in suicide bombings within Israel since its construction as proof that the structure is both effective and required. Opponents claim the structure is an attempt to annex occupied Palestinian territory and unilaterally define future borders. They also maintain that the route of the barrier steals privately owned land, and makes certain Palestinian villages and cities economically unviable. Israel has modified some of the routes in response to an Israeli High Court of Justice ruling as well as in response to international pressure, but the route is still disputed. The debate over its legality was flamed after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion declaring it a breach of international law. See Kershner, Isabel. Barrier: The Seam of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. For online statistics and analysis see “Separation Barrier.” B’Tselem. 9 November 2007 http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation%5FBarrier/
Travel Permits
Israeli-issued travel permits are required primarily for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza for travel into Israel, and at times throughout East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Israelis seeking to travel to Area A regions (land under full civilian and security control of the Palestinian Authority) as delineated by the Oslo Accords, must also receive permits. The policy of obligatory travel permits is part of a more comprehensive restriction of movement imposed on Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the State of Israel. The Israeli government maintains that the measures are necessary for Israel’s security. See “Restrictions on Movement.” B’Tselem. 10 November 2007 http://www.btselem.org/English/Freedom_of_Movement/Index.asp
Palestinian Refugees
refers to Palestinian refugees who lost their homes and lands as a result of the creation of the State of Israel, the War of 1948 as well as the War of 1967. According to MidEastWeb for Coexistence the number of Palestinian refugees range from roughly 520,000 according to Israeli sources, 726,000 according to UN sources and to over 800,000 according to Arab sources. Including descendents, the number of registered Palestinian refugees numbered more than 4.3 million in 2005 according to UN and BBC statistics. See: United Nations http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html, British Broadcasting Corporation http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1600000/newsid_1606800/1606817.stm and http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm
Aliyah
(Hebrew, pl aliyot) To ascend. Traditionally used to describe the act of a Jew moving to Eretz Yisrael, or the historic land of Israel (See Eretz Yisrael in glossary). In modern Israeli history, refers to the various waves of immigration to what is now the state of Israel, beginning with the First Aliyah of 1882 to Palestine. From the 1880s to the end of World War II, Palestine experienced five major waves of Aliyah, and another major influx following the war. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Israel has codified encouragement of Aliyah to Diaspora Jews in the Law of Return. See Kumaraswamy, P.R. “Aliya.” Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, 2006.
Zionism
The belief that the Jewish people should have a national homeland, and refuge from persecution, in Israel. Supporters of this idea are called Zionists. The Zionist Movement took shape in Europe in the late 1800s with the First Zionist Conference in Basel, Switzerland. The movement advocated the ideology of Zionism, a national liberation ideology of the Jewish people with several strands, foremost being the establishment of a Jewish state within the biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael or Zion). Zionism has many manifestations, from religious to secular, each defining a distinct view of which land should be settled, and how it should be done. See http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm
Masada
is the name of a fortress built by the Romans in the first century BCE on a mountain in the Judean Desert overlooking the Dead Sea. Masada is a popular destination in southern Israel often frequented by Jewish tourists for its historical and symbolic meanings. From 70-73 CE, it served as a fortress for approximately one thousand Jewish zealots who rebelled against the Roman’s destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. When it appeared the Romans were close to conquering Masada, these Jews committed mass suicide upon the mountaintop. It has since become a symbol among the Zionist movement inspired by Yitzhak Lamdan’s poem, Masada. Also see Yitzhak Lamdan. Symbolic Places of National History and Revival: A Study in Zionist Mythical Geography. Maoz Azaryahu; Aharon Kellerman. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 1. (1999), pp. 109-123.
Yitzhak Lamdan
Zionist Poet whose poem Masada gained widespread popularity in the early 1920’s among the Zionist youth movement. His poem’s most famous line reads “never again shall Masada fall”, referring to Israel as a home to the Jewish people and therefore tying it to the Zionist movement. http://www.jafi.org.il/education/culture/onisraeli/02-zionism.html
Suicide Attack/Bombing
Also referred to in the Arabic language and by Islamist groups as “martyrdom operations,” (the act of suicide is forbidden in Islam) and by certain academics and Jewish groups as “homicide bombings”. Starting in the mid-1990’s, certain Palestinian militant groups used suicide bombings to harm and terrorize Israeli citizens. In most cases, the term is used to refer to militant operations during which the assailant detonates a bomb nearby targeted victims, sacrificing him or herself during the attack. While suicide bombers do target military installations, they most often strike civilian areas. They became especially popular in 1994 and during the tense years of the Oslo process, employed most often by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A second more frequent slew of attacks began after the start of the second intifada, which this time included terrorist attacks by the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade in addition to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. For a list of attacks since 1994 see “Suicide and Other Bombing attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (Sept 1993)” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 9 November 2007.
Post theories
are those theories that evolve or transform beyond their original arguments, often over time. In this case, Michal is referring to “post” theories related to the conflict, including post-nationalism, which argues that the rights and characteristics that apply to a nation-state are becoming increasingly irrelevant as those boundaries are integrated into more global, universal rights and identity. Post-nationalism undermines the assertion that one’s individual and collective rights can only be realized within the framework of a nation-state. Some argue that an example of a quasi-post-nationalist body is that of the European Union as it cedes a degree of national sovereignty to the larger union. Post-Zionism questions or counters the argument that there is an irrefutable need for a Jewish nation-state. Some post-Zionists support a democratic, secular State of Israel while others support a binational Palstinian-Jewish entity in all of historic Palestine. See: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/eurpolcom/exhibits/ps1999ajs.pdf and http://www.lehigh.edu/~ljs2/postzionism.html
Palestinian Authority
Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Also known as the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA was created to serve as the governing body in charge of Palestinian self-rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of the Oslo process. While the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed on to the Oslo peace process in 1993, it has since seen its leadership absorbed into the PA, pursuant to the May 1994 Gaza-Jericho agreement and the September 1995 Interim Agreement. As leader of the PLO, Arafat became the PA Chairman in 1994. The Palestinian Authority is the first governing body of the Palestinian people by Palestinians. Its authority was significantly curtailed by the content of the agreements signed with Israel during the Oslo Process, giving it full jurisdiction over only a small proportion of the West Bank (see “Areas A, B and C” in glossary). It consists of a legislative Council and its President, including 24 ministries. Mahmoud Abbas was appointed President of the PA in April 2003, was replaced by Ahmed Qurei months later, and was elected in 2005. The PA has observer status in the United Nations. See Parsons, Nigel. The Politics of the Palestinian Authority. New York: Routledge, 2005 and Kimmerling, Baruch and Joel S. Migdal. The Palestinian People: a History. London: Harvard University Press, 2003. See online “Palestinian National Authority.” Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. 11 September 2007 http://www.un.int/palestine/thepa.shtml
Camp David
An American presidential getaway in Maryland. In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, two significant events took place at Camp David, often referred to as Camp David I and Camp David II. At Camp David I (September 1978), Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin reached a bilateral agreement, with assistance and pressure from American President Carter, in which Israel would return the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for recognition and peace with Egypt, thereby establishing a precedent for “land-for-peace” negotiations. The Agreement called for talks between Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Palestinian representatives to create a framework for negotiations regarding the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This goal was never met. Camp David II refers to the last Oslo process-related meetings between Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in the summer of 2000 over “final status” issues such as the settlements, Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood, the rights and entitlements of Palestinian refugees and more. Negotiations broke down and no agreement was reached. The collapse of the process was followed shortly thereafter by the second intifada. See Swisher, Clayton E. The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story of the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process. New York: Nation Books, 2004, Sher, Gilead. The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations, 1999-2001: Within Reach. London & New York: Routledge, 2006, Shamir, Shimon and Bruce Maddy-Wetzman, eds. The Camp David Summit-What Went Wrong? Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2005 and Malley, Robert and Hussein Agha. “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors.” New York Review of Books (August 9 2001), pp 59-65, online at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Taba
An Egyptian Red Sea resort town just across the Israeli-Egyptian Sinai border, Taba was the meeting place for several peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, including the Taba talks (January 2001), which were considered by many to have produced the most comprehensive and viable proposal for a final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. Its conclusions remain unimplemented. For analysis see “Deconstructing the Taba Talks.” Settlement Report. 11.2 (2001) 9 November 2007 http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol11/no2/04-deconstructing_taba_talks.html
Stockholm
Back-channel peace talks occurred between high level Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the city of Stockholm, Sweden, in May 2000. The negotiations broke off following violence that erupted between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/772808.stm
European Union
See http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
Negev
Desert comprising the southern one-third of Israel.
