Last March, there was some controversy on the DSG Senate floor when a new student group, Duke Students for Justice in Palestine (DSJP), was seeking recognition from the Student Organization Finance Committee (SOFC). Apparently some senators took issue with the word “Palestine” in the name of the organization seeing as how the United Nations does not officially recognize such a state.
Fortunately, the DSG Senate recognized this as the utter nonsense that it was, and the group was approved by a wide margin (33-3). In light of the current push for UN recognition by Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, the SOFC debate does bring to light one of the many ways that conversations regarding Israel and Palestine often end up being unproductive. I would like to take some time to focus on several of these impasses and what we can possibly do to avoid them.
1. A nation-state is just a means to an end.
With all this talk of states and international recognition, it’s easy to forget what the point of a nation-state actually is. The topic, of course, is one that is beyond the scope of a single column, but one way to understand it is through the concept of self-determination. That is to say, a nation-state is only significant insofar as it is allows the people of that nation to decide their individual fates and establish their sovereignty without external compulsion or interference.
An insistence on a particular nation-state should not trump concerns of self-determination and human rights. For instance, even if Palestine does gain UN recognition, it’s not entirely clear what effect it will have in terms of legitimate political representation, dismantling of settlements, ending of the occupation, lifting of the siege on Gaza or the return of refugees—all essential parts in ensuring Palestinian self-determination. And this is saying nothing of sorting out the mess of territorial disputes. In fact, it’s messy enough that it’s becoming increasingly clear that the traditional way of thinking about a nation state, i.e. a geopolitical entity organized around a common cultural or ethnic identity, will not work in the dispute between Israeli and Palestinian. At the very least, however, the UN bid will reveal just how committed the United States and the rest of the international community is to the self-determination of the Palestinian people.
2. Forget the religion talk.
Of course, religion plays a role in the conflict, but that role is often over-emphasized or misunderstood. Some facts to clear the air: Jews and Muslims have not been fighting since time immemorial; this conflict has roots from the very recent history of post-World War II and post-colonial realities. Around 8 percent of the population in the West Bank is Christian, and they live under the same occupation and subjugation as everyone else. There is a significant cultural divide within Israel between Orthodox Jews and those who are more secularly minded and between Jews of different national backgrounds. The ill effects of framing the conversation in terms of religion can be seen when legitimate criticisms of Israel are confused for actual anti-Semitism. Or when the conflict is used to reinforce the ridiculous notion of a global Islamic threat.
Let’s consider the implications of our own president’s insistence upon the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state.” Almost 25 percent of citizens within the state of Israel are non-Jewish. How would these citizens be guaranteed equal representation under the law in a Jewish state? Religion creates an interesting dynamic in the conflict but to continue to discuss this political conflict primarily in terms of religion is counterproductive. It is best that people recognize the political, sociological and historical realities of the conflict before reducing it to one of Jews versus Muslims.
3. Put an end to “Hummus Diplomacy.”
I don’t care that you enjoy hummus and falafels. Chickpeas may be a good source of protein, but they’re much more effective at generating a bunch of hot air than they are at generating productive conversations towards conflict resolution and reconciliation. Realizing the etymological similarities between Arabic and Hebrew (Shalom! Salam!) may be interesting at first, but it becomes tiresome once one gains any semblance of an understanding of the ethno-linguistic history of the region.
Hummus diplomacy is what I call the kinds of conversations that focus on similarities to try and reconcile the supposedly irreconcilable. It’s not just useless, but actually harmful in the way it frames the conversation. If you need a legume to realize that someone else is a human being deserving of respect, then there are much more important things to be discussing. We can have mature conversations about political disagreements without resorting to tired talks based on cheap comparisons. Having productive conversations first requires people to actually be able to articulate their positions and listen to the positions of others. If you’re afraid of disagreement, the least you could do is not bring the level of discourse down to the gastronomic.
Because of the influence of the United States in the international community, we should realize that our voices and our conversations about Israel and Palestine matter. To devise creative solutions to one of the longest ongoing conflicts of our time, we need new and more effective ways of thinking and talking about the issue.
Ahmad Jitan is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.