Please post your final blogs here. I am extending the deadline until Dec 7th.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
About Me
-
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Int
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Class [POSC 377-Fall 2006].
45 Comments:
I’ve learned how complicated the peace process in the Middle East can be, especially in regards to negotiations. Each side feels a certain sense of entitlement and has difficulty making concessions for the sake of peace.
The simulations gave me insight on how big negotiations and diplomacy work. From the perspective of the United Nations, trying to keep the peace without upsetting one side or the other is a very difficult task. Not everyone is going to be happy with the decisions that are made in the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly, but ultimately, the UN has the best interests of all the parties involved. Their main objective is to keep the peace and try to find a middle ground which is suitable for everyone involved.
The course gave me a better understanding of the underlying reasons on why the situation is what it is, including ever-expanding daily settlements and lack of freedom of movement of Palestinians due to Israeli soldiers and check points. It helped me to grasp what the conflict is really about, who feels entitled to what, and what has been done to try to make peace in the region through the various and extensive peace proposals. There were a few major players in the conflict that I had not considered before, like the Arab and Israeli lobby groups in the United States. But with a genuine lack of trust from both sides, and for legitimate reasons, peace still seems a long way away.
I felt like I had a good background understanding of the regional politics surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict when I first started taking this class but I definitely understood the Israeli side far more clearly than I understood the others. The issue of settlements in the West Bank was not very clear to me prior to this class, and the films we watched in class as well as the discussions we had gave me a great deal of insight as to why this is such an important talking point with regards to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Class discussions also hilighted the importance of Arab economic cooperation with one another as an important factor in the regions stability, The thought of which hadn't even occured to me in the past. These are several of the issues that I will be sure to follow more closely in the peace process.
The simulation was very helpful in undserstanding different sides of issues because, contrary to popular belief, I do not agree with absolutely everything Olmert believes in. Though the simulation was extremely hypothetical to say the least, the issues that were addressed and the compromises made were real and somewhat indicative of the courses of action that actually need to be taken. Playing a role helps in understanding a given position because you are forced to take a stand on an issue that you may not agree with, which requires at least the knowledge and understanding of where a particular side is coming from. In my case, I do no support complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, or the dismantling of all settlements. Researching the issue gave me a greater undertanding of the consequences of the Israeli presence in these areas, however, and I certainly view the situation from a different perspective now. I found it very interesting that this act of Israeli withdrawal, at least in the simulation, proved to be the biggest step in securing a diplomatic solution to this awful, albeit farfectched scenario.
The class discussions and the simulation made me more aware of the importance of negotiation and compromise when working to resolve the current crisis. The current situation is particularly difficult because there are a number of different groups (a number of which weren’t readily apparent to me until quite recently) and they each have their own specific interests. There is no military solution to the issue, and while force can be used to provide a deterrent to some extent, in the long run it serves to increase resentment on either side.
The Arab-Israeli Conflict is something I always thought I understood well. However, the more I read and learned from class discussion, the more complicated the situation seemed to become. The right of return, checkpoints, citizenship, the involvement of foreign powers, etc, almost guarantee that a true solution can only be reached through mutual compromise.
The simulations helped me to realize the stake some nations have in the conflict. As the representative of Hezbollah, my position as a primary opponent of Israel was weakened with the renewed negotiation between Iran, my primary benefactor, and the United States. Issues go beyond our daily news headlines, and the backdoor negotiations often can make or break a situation such as the one presented to us. The sudden turnaround of US foreign policy, while unrealistic in such a short time period, highlighted, for me at least, what the situation might look like had the United States "switched sides" on the conflict. It was an interesting experiment to say the least.
Beyond the facts and figures the course helped me to recognize the human toll behind the daily posturing by heads of state and news pundits. I've never considered the deperate situation of Palestinian refugees, the lack of basic services in Gaza and the West Bank, the inside story behind someone killed by a suicide bomber. Put simply, the Arab-Israeli conflict is more than a simple "Jews vs Muslims" type situation. The shades of gray are plentiful on both sides. The sooner we realize that, both as Americans and as human beings, the sooner I believe we will come to a lasting and realistic peace.
I've learned how painstakingly slow the peace process due to the amount of involved parties. It also made me realize how big of a role the United States must play for peace to take hold. Another thing I learned is even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority agree a group like the settlers or Hamas could ruin easily ruin the fragile peace. Sometimes it seems like peace is not in their interest even if they "win".
The simulations showed me that the real diplomacy happens outside the UN in smaller groups like we saw the first day. It taught me that if we rely only on the UN the conflict may never be resolved, it takes proactive countries like those of Europe and hopefully the US to engage both sides to help bridge what appears to be ireconcilable differences.
This course gave me an understanding of the roots of the conflict. It showed me that it is not the traditional "its religious and it will never be solved" attitude. There are clear goals of each side and while difficult peace is possible. One thing that I found interesting when writing my paper was despite all the violence in the region; both sides feel that peace is now attainable if the US takes a more prominent role in the peace process. I learned just how powerful the Israeli lobby is, something I had never really thought about before. I just knew the US supported Israel and never gave much thought to why. The biggest thing I learned is that both sides need to have some degree of trust if peace is to be achieved.
In playing the role of Barack Obama I gained a great respect for the peace process. In having as many characters as there were, I was able to get at least a glimpse of how intertwined the international community is. Though there is a certain balance that needs to be struck between the multiple players, there is certainly no way to appease everybody. For example, in our specific simulation Israel was largely at the short end of most of the negotiations and though Ohmert was extremely willing to help, many of his contemporaries, like Lieberman were not. Each person of the simulation was somehow connected to another and it is extremely difficult to keep everyone in mind, especially while trying to promote peace. At the end of the day the result is largely superficial. There may be hundreds of new treaties and agreements but unless they are all respected they might as well not exist. Peace is only as viable and strong as its supporters; no amount of meetings or agreements can assure it. As political leaders you can only help that meetings and talks and treaties will work; the true test comes later with the imposition of these policies and the reactions of the people.
As a student I thought the simulation was beneficial for understanding some intricacies of policy making. Though our simulation was in the end very unrealistic (as my character was somehow able to get the entire world to agree to peace in the Middle East in 2-3 months), it gave good insight on the types of issues that these nations may someday face. I think it would’ve been better had it been fewer people per group (have the UN group meet for a week, Israeli supporters for a week, Arabs for a week etc.) and then in the end all come together with legitimate proposals and negotiations. However, I do still believe that we were given an opportunity to simulate what we would want, or thought our characters would want if faced with the type of crisis with which we were presented. It was also really interesting for me to play a young liberal Democrat because I am in most cases a pretty conservative Republican. I’m not sure what I would’ve changed a whole lot concerning my negotiations though. The simulation itself was so drastic I don’t know that I would’ve reacted another way.
This course as a whole taught me everything I know about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Arab-Israeli world. I knew nothing about the topics before so, it was extremely beneficial to take this class. Additionally, from the simulation I think I learned mostly that when it comes to the Middle East and all the players, everyone relies on everybody else. The web is so intertwined that each little wrinkle in the infrastructure of the policy has a legitimate affect on everyone with interests in the region. The Arab-Israeli conflict spreads far beyond the Arab-Israeli world and when it comes to making changes, everyone has to make adjustments.
What I have learned from this course about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that not one single aspect in the politics of it is black and white. There is no right or wrong to any argument made by either side in the conflict, as each party sees their rights as more legitimate than the other or considers themselves the rightful “owner” of the land. I have also learned that the conflict is not one of religion, but of balance of power and control. I had always considered the politics involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict as the most interesting of all modern day conflicts. I honestly thought I had a pretty good grasp of every angle of it, as I have focused on it for a number of years. This class pretty much shot that confidence to the ground, as I realized just how much I still don’t know about the conflict and how much more I’d like to learn. For instance, I was not aware of all of the attacks Jews waged on the British before Israel was established. I was surprised by this, because now that I know it seems like this stuff was common knowledge to many. I also had absolutely no idea that Hamas was in any way a charitable entity, which is most likely owing to the success of the Israeli campaign to convince Jews that Hamas is nothing but a dangerous terrorist organization. Actually, prior to the class I was under the impression because of things I had read or heard that Hamas used such charity monies to fund terrorist acts rather than philanthropic work. Because of this class, I have also become more aware of the differing sects within what’s often generalized as the “Arab” world. Previously when thinking of the Middle East, I would lump together all Muslim states as one, with Israel on the opposite side. Now I know how ignorant that sort of thinking is.
As for the simulations, I felt that it helped me better understand the extremely diverse interests and opinions involved in the conflict. It also shed light on the fact that so many different parties have stakes in this conflict and their ideas and interests have a major impact on its progression. This is partly why it is so difficult to come to terms on any single issue, which we clearly observed in our simulations. Playing the role of Syria, and thus playing a part in the Palestinian group meetings was quite interesting. I placed myself in a position that is opposite to my own, and I’m glad I did this because it enabled me to open my eyes to the rightful demands of the Palestinian people. At times it was challenging because I found it difficult to prevent myself from moderating some demands I felt were too radical. But ultimately, it made me see things from a point of you I would normally not consider.
This course has absolutely changed the way I view the Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the course, I essentially questioned nothing the Israeli government did, supported virtually everything Israel embarked upon, and staunchly defended any remotely anti-Israeli statement. After taking part in open class discussion on varied topics, participating in the blogs, and in particular, after writing my final paper on Jewish anti-Zionists, I have adopted a more even-handed outlook on the conflict. I have developed a more open minded outlook on the conflict, rather than just seeing it from a pro-Israeli view. I have also come to terms with the fact that the decisions of the Israeli government have been far from perfect, and now have more sympathy for the Palestinian people than I did before. I have learned an invaluable lesson to question the things I read, the things I hear, and the things I am taught, because I have realized much of these things were designed to make me think that Israel is always the good guy. Nevertheless, I do support Israel, and I am excited to spend my spring semester abroad in Tel Aviv. However, thanks to this class I feel I will get even more out of my visit than I would have if I did not take this class. For now when I’m in Israel I will seek out the voices that stand for peace and that recognize the rights of the Palestinians, rather than just go there to have a good time on the beach.
Through attending class and participation in the simulations, I was able to learn a great deal about the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, its global implications and the plethora of challenges that exist. Currently, the peace process is in a very dire situation because of the urgency of problems elsewhere in the region such as the sectarian and insurgent violence that continues in Iraq, Hezbollah which remains heavily armed on the Lebanese-Israeli border and attempting to acquire more power in the pro-Western Sinora government, and continued break down in talks between the Palestinians at forming a unity government. The simulations showed that because of the large number of parties and interests involved in the conflict, even with a monumental shift in the balance of power that would be caused by something along the lines of Israel killing President-elect Clinton, it would still be extremely difficult to reach a peaceful compromise. This conflict is truly global for reasons that include the larges reserves of oil, the sanctity places such as Jerusalem and Mecca to the world’s major religions and the focus of the Middle East as the centricity of t he War on Terror.
I learned a great deal from playing the Palestinian Diaspora in the simulation. Through my research in preparation for the simulation I came to understand that even within the role I was supposed to play, there are large disparities in views on the various issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. By playing a role I was forced to analyze the situation from a completely new and diverse perspective. Actively arguing for views that I do not necessarily prescribe to, as is the case with some factions of the Palestinian Diaspora, the exercise helped to expand my perspective. Also, creating a simulation where the situation being discussed is hypothetical as opposed to one that better reflects reality is important because it necessitates innovative thinking from the participants. This creative thinking is important for the formulation of original ideas to solve real world situations such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is for these reasons that the simulation is a very effective learning tool.
As I have previously stated, I learned a great deal from this course and the various assignments. While much of the education provided by the course was factual, I was also able to gain more abstract knowledge such as how the various parties involved participate in negotiations as well as the effect the ability to negotiate has on their situations. For example, if the Arabs had been more astute diplomatically, there likely would have been a Palestinian state established decades ago. I also thought it was very significant how much my perspective changed on the U.S. media and the media in general because of its ability to skew issues through the framing and selection of information. The more media sources that one consults, the greater perspective one can have on a given situation.
I have learned a great deal of factual information about the Arab-Israeli conflict. When I came into the class I had a very rough understanding of the conflict but all my information came from watching the evening news or reading a few newspaper articles. I didn't realize the amount of violence, perpetrated by both sides over the last 60 years. I didn't know that there were Israeli settlements in the West Bank that breached international law. I also didn't know that Israeli politicians had been assassinated because of their "concessionary" attitudes towards the Palestinians. This course taught me that there are many more players than just the Israelis and the Palestinians in the Peace Process and without a concerted effort by all parties it will be difficult to create a lasting peace.
As a student, I found the simulation very educational. Most political science courses are of the lecture/test sort, which is an important aspect of learning. However, in the real world, this is not as important as learning to negotiate, dealing with other actors, and engaging in dialogue. The simulation was a welcomed break from the monotony of usual classes and was an opportunity to improve other skills besides knowledge of facts. The simulation also highlighted the difficulties of international relations. Each group has specific goals which rarely line up with many other group's goals, but often are the opposite of most other group's goals. I was actually fairly lucky to be Islamic Jihad, as they have the goal of eliminating Israel and aren't very interested in what others think because they have no ties to them. The government of Israel, on the other hand, has to deal with the surrounding Arab states (who all want different things), the EU, U.S., the UN, the die-hard settlers, moderate terrorists groups, radical terrorists groups, etc. It shows how difficult it is to decide on the correct course of action because no matter what you choose, someone will be angry or feel slighted.
On a more philosophical note, I learned that no matter what else, people want a homeland. Israel was put forth as "a land without people, for a people without land". It is true that the Jewish people had no homeland, no safe refuge, prior to '48, but it is not true that Palestine was without people. I believe that the root of the conflict comes from the grievances of one group being used to justify injustice against another. The cycle of retaliation is endless, as we have seen the last 60 years. It is not in the nature of Jews or Muslims to fight one another, but it is in the nature of humans to defend what they see as rightfully theirs. Until both sides feel as though they have a safe area where they can live free and prosper, the conflict will continue.
I am realizing finally that the peace process between Israel and Arab nations is not as easy as I once may have thought. I used to think that there was only one right answer, and through this class I learned that there are so many other situations going on that impede the process. Whenever I used to read stories in newspapers, or watch the news, I only looked at what was happening with one perspective. Now I am able to sit out of my box and look at the whole picture. The peace process will never be a clear cut answer. There are always different problems, people and countries getting in the way. Because I was really only letting myself see one perspective of the peace process, I was using a lot of blame and thought that one group was the reason nothing was working out. Now, I can see that both groups have made it difficult to make peace.
The simulation was very interesting for me, as I have never done something like that before. My role was not completely opposite of what I believe, but it was interesting to have to look at the Arab-Israeli situation outside of my views, and in someone else’s. It was also really interesting to see people who were normally one sided, acting a completely different side. It must have taken a lot of research and a lot of good acting to be able to fight for their role, but opposite what they normally believe. I didn’t realize how many different people and countries and involved in this process. It’s not just the Arabs and the Israelis working for the process. As the media, I observed the simulation as it was happening and even though it could not be exactly as it is in real life, I thought it was interesting to see people interacting with one another. Because of my role as the media I saw that the media can really take regular facts and sway them a certain way to make the situation different.
This course really opened my eyes to what is happening over in the Middle East. There are so many aspects to think about when talking about the violence. I used to think that the Israeli government was perfect and that the whole situation was happening because there were suicide bombers, and Israel was just defending itself. Now, I can look at the situation and say that Israel has been doing some things that were illegal, unethical as well and that contributes to why this situation is still going on. This class made me realize that the violence isn’t just going to go away with more military on the ground and more border control checks. If anything, that is just making everything worse. This class really opened my eyes to looking at both perspectives and I think that in general that will make me better educated in the affairs of the Middle East. Overall, this class made more interested in Middle Eastern affairs, and has made me want to learn more and more of what is really happening.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perhaps one of the most sensitive issues within the international arena. This dispute extends far beyond Israel’s borders; and has religious significance Muslims, Christians, and Jews around the world. Although the situation in Iraq has shifted international attention within the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is potentially more explosive, especially when actors such as Hezbollah and Iran are periodically inflaming the issue. It seems as though the conflict has been extended so far that every region in the world is somehow connected to it. Although I had a basic knowledge of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I was aware of how contentious an issue it is, as the course progressed I began to realize the conflict’s truly global implications and the amount of players directly involved in settling the dispute.
With regard to the simulation, I personally believe that withdraw of U.S. support for Israel would have nearly the opposite effect of how the simulation played out. Rather than Palestinians receiving concession from the Israelis, I believe the Israelis would stamp out all problems related to the Palestinians. Immediately following the shift in U.S. policy, Israel would sweep through the Palestinian territories in an effort to disarm all non-Israelis. Israel would also start building settlements at a record pace, with the intent of stirring up militant Palestinians, which would be subsequently eliminated. As brutal as the Israeli tactics occasionally seem, I believe Israel is forced to practice some restraint because of Washington. With the U.S. out of the picture, Israel will no longer be influenced by any outside power.
This course allowed me to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from both perspectives. I witnessed first-hand what a truly emotion issue it is for some people. More importantly, it made me realize that for any issue open to debate, emotion simply doesn’t suffice. After learning the facts behind the conflict, many students in our class lowered their voices and began changing some their arguments.
The most important thing that I have learned from this class is the level of diversity among the actors involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. My previous notion of the Arab-Israeli conflict was that it was Israel against the Arab world. However, it has become clear that the “Arab world” is far from a singular identity, especially when it comes to the various factions who focus on the Palestinian situation and relations with Israel. The diversity within Israel is just as important as that in the surrounding Arab nations. It is important to understand that the actions taken by Israel do not necessarily represent a majority opinion within Israel.
The use of a simulation and role playing helped me learn because I was forced to research the conflict with the position of my role in mind. This meant that I had to view the entire conflict from a perspective that was divergent from my own. I feel that one of the most important lessons from this class is the emphasis on the gap between the understanding of the various sides of the conflict and this was emphasized by having to research from another point of view. The internal conflicts that I had while trying to think from the perspective of my role emphasized the difficulty of how hard it is to reconcile the opposing views in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This course as a whole taught me the importance of considering the context and framework from which an opposing side is basing their arguments. It is not enough to simply listen to these arguments and then apply them to your own context. Too often this will end with the simple conclusion that the opposing side’s argument is illegitimate. However, if you were to put yourself in the context of the opposing side you may come to a completely different conclusion. I believe that this is a skill in which I was able to develop over the course of this semester and is a skill that is required on a global scale to find an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The peace process is by means an easy one. Many cup of coffee and the morning news critics dream about alternatives to what his or her government is doing in the Middle East and how the situation could be made better if only people had some sense in the world. However, the peace process is just that—a process. It is not an idea or a fantasy, nor (as often as it may seem) are the plans of action a jumbled mess that some politician pulled out of his hat. I took the Model UN class last semester, and through that experience I learned how unproductive a peace process can be. As with our simulation, it first takes a lot of knowledge and preparation. Everyone has to know what it wants, what it will demand, and what it is willing to accept. Sometimes these expectations do not accommodate others’, and therein lays the struggle. There are centuries of conflict in the Middle East that cannot possibly be resolved in one sitting. With everyone having their own agenda, and stubbornness as a barrier to agreement, it is difficult to remember what the meeting was even called for.
As students, it was hard for us to embrace the severity of an issue such as the US for support for Israel being so depleted. In my opinion, I feel that there were way too many actors, and not everyone had an easy time getting their voice heard in the few short sessions we had. During the General Assembly session, no one was informed as to the peace process document. I think that it would have gone much more smoothly if we had used our day off to conduct a more real-to life UN General Assembly simulation, in which we could draft resolutions and find signatories, vote and pass items accordingly. I think this way we would have been able to interact on a more personal level and we would have also been more personally familiar with the documents. No one really knew what was going on, even though everyone had some good ideas. I think that by taking a day to draft resolutions they could be copied and handed out to the class. Then on the last day we could vote on each proposal. Much more efficient.
I really enjoyed the simulation because I learned that preparation and moreover, organization, is crucial to coming to the table with some good ideas. In our small group on the first day, everyone came head on with their ideas and demands and I learned that it is much more efficient to focus on a few solid foundation-building blocks, upon which other progress can me made later. In the real situation, it is not possible to implement all of the proposals that were made on Tuesday without a timeline. However, if we had selected a few solid points upon which to get that timeline started, it would have been much more efficient. In the real world, this type of thinking is very important to recognize. Instead of trying to do everything at once, it is crucial for getting any number of things done that the list of “things” is prioritized- organizing the most important and foundational things first, then organizing your timeline from that point.
When I first came into the class I thought that I knew most of what there was to know about the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, once the class really got started I found that the majority of the information I knew was about the Israeli side of the conflict and not the Palestinian. I had known about the suicide bombings done in Israel but had no idea about the things that the Israeli’s do in the territories, such as the checkpoints and home demolitions. It was eye opening for me to see the things that the Israeli’s were doing throughout the conflict because a lot of the things that were presented I had either not heard before (like the terrorism under the Mandate) or had somewhat heard but dismissed as propaganda and exaggerations. It was also very enlightening to learn about the different factions in the Israeli and Palestinian sides and the internal disagreements that they have and how this affects the conflict and the peace process.
The simulation I found to be very interesting and an excellent way to illustrate the difficulties of the peace process. I hadn’t realized before how many groups and interests were involved in this conflict and how hard it is to reach common consensus when there are so many groups you have to try to please. I can see why the peace process takes so long, since everyone wants to voice their opinions and every issue goes very in depth in discussion and debate. For me, as France, I found it interesting that I was sort of standing outside the conflict looking in and then got to try to find a balance between the two sides as part of the Quartet.
Overall, I feel that the course has changed my opinions on the conflict greatly. While before I saw the Israeli’s as a group that was just trying to live in peace and have a place for the Jews to call home, I now see that it isn’t as morally justified and clear cut as it is often portrayed as. Furthermore, I now see that the Palestinians are very justified in having many of the grievances that they do against Israel and that I shouldn’t dismiss them as I had in the past.
I believe the peace process, as explored through the class, gives each side an opportunity to correct the issues at hand. I understand that it does not give the opportunity to correct the violent actions of the past, nor should anyone forget what horrible things each side has done to one another. Nonetheless, it would be a shame if the past examples of violence do no spurn future peace talks which correct the issues. Its unfortunate that civilians are dying and that their deaths may not push leaders to make decisions with both political and policy courage in mind. People are going to have to take risks, but the risks are worth it if it can save lives and lead to peace in the region.
The simulation is certainly a unique experience. I am sure many students were flustered giving their role or the fact that their role may have been in contrast with their actual beliefs on the issues. I played the role of Senator Lugar on the Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, my role seemed to be a background player in the simulation. Given the position at which I picked my role, I few choices, but looking back I probably would have preferred to be a different person. That is my only criticism of the simulation, because there are too few key players due to the event. It is difficult to guarantee participation when the media players ask questions to the most important figures alone.
I have learned a great deal about conflict throughout this course. I took this class because I was interested in learning what the conflict is about. It is easy to take an ignorant position if you listen to the US media or picture things from your own perspective alone. It is clear that both sides have done some horrible things in the past and it is possible that it will continue in the future. I have learned is that peace is not possible without two sides who are able to have an honest and just discussion. To have that discussion I believe the two sides need to recognize each other’s problems and see that they have more in common than not. I would like to quote John F. Kennedy who stated, “So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.” Each side may claim the same land, and hold a different set of beliefs, but they both deep down seek to live in peace. There are many advantages to living in a land with diverse beliefs. Debate is a great thing and this class certainly debates many of the important issues. I look forward to a day when an intelligent debate between Palestinians and Israelis can exists. I guess the better question is if the debate will take place within a two state solution or one. I would like to close by listing the following link that I found on the NPR webpage. The link provided allows people to listen into a debate about Hamas and specifically if it should be considered a terrorist entity or if it is a legitimate government party. I think the debaters outline many of the key issues, which we talked about in class, and they all give examples of the history between the Palestinians and Israelis. It is fascinating and anyone truly interested in the topic should listen. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6583080
I had taken the history class for the Islamic Middle East and when i began i thought that I knew enough to have given a lot of input into the situation. HOwever, I think that I had a biased attitude towards the plight of hte Palestinians because I typically look at the underdog and side with them. In this course I learned that most Israelis do care about the peace process, however in hand with that their security must be reassured. The situation is much more difficult than what I would advise them to do, just do what is right, which is difficult not only to do, but to determine.
The simulations allowed me to see first hand how difficult, and sometimes how outrageous the process for peace is. The role that I played did not enable me to have much of a say in the final process; NATO cannot decide what policy the world should take towards a nation that has committed a wrong, and it helped me to see in a weird sense of how the Arab nations must feel when they are not admitted say in the Great Powers agenda. THe Great Powers are the ultimate say, and what they determine goes.
I never knew that ther was such a thing as a Jewish terrorist. TAking this course reassures me that those who are desperate, or have great determination will do whatever they can to obtain the respect that they deserve, and that is what this conflict is all about. I learned that both side are looking to receive from the opposite and the world the respect that has long been withheld from them.
Prior to taking this course I knew absolutely nothing about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, so everything was new to me. I wasn't very familiar with the details surrounding Israel's formation, either, and I thought it was fascinating to learn about the Jewish terrorist groups in the 40's. The issues surrounding settlements intrigued me, also. All I knew about them before this course was whatever I'd seen in an occasional newspaper article, and I sort of had the image of these settlements as being small groups of brave Israeli's living in a sort of "no man's land." But after learning about the rest of the world's condemnation of the settlements and their status under international law (and after seeing a picture of one for the first time), I realized how wrong I was. All of this helped show me that the suicide bombers I always read about are not just the product of "religious fanaticism," as the media might lead one to believe.
I thought the simulation was great. At first I thought it'd be difficult to represent the settlers, considering my sympathies lie mostly with the Palestinians when it comes to that issue. However, I actually ended up finding it quite easy...because the fact is, BOTH sides make good arguments. Yes, Palestinians had their land unfairly taken from them, and they are justified in wanting it back. But at the same time, how can you really expect a whole new generation of settlers to pay for the "sins of the father" and pack up and leave their lives behind? There's no "right" answer - all there can be is compromise.
That's what makes this conflict so difficult to resolve, and that's the number one thing I've learned in this class. There are problems in the world, such as this one, that have such a long, complicated past that makes it impossible to come up with a traditional solution. The simulation was a perfect example; even with an absolutely outrageous hypothetical situation that stacked the deck in our favor, we were still unable to come up with something. Instead, I've learned that all you can do it make small steps towards progress. Compromise after compromise, one at a time, in the direction you want to move. You'll probably never reach an ideal solution (because there is none), but you'll come close enough.
The peace process for negotiating a countries future is incredibly difficult regardless of country. There are so many different sides to each argument. Group 1 will agree with Group 2 and Group3 won’t, Group 1 and 3 agree on something else and now 2 is not satisfied. It becomes a very difficult process. Another main challenge is to have the reprimands be fair or justifiable to those that are losing rights, land, or anything else for that matter. It’s always been known that you can never please absolutely everyone, and that there are compromises that have to be made; as painful as they may be. There are so many different variables, interest groups and lobbies it’s a wonder that anything was resolved.
From my own personal point of view, surprisingly enough the final meeting between everyone was incredibly accurate to what probably actually goes on. The bickering between sides, arguing points and at the end of the day; a stalemate. Some of the resolution points I don’t believe would have gone over as easily as they did. There were quite a few mandates towards Israel that they seemed to have just accepted without much debate or negotiation. A perfect example of this was the way the Israeli leaders left the settlers to fend for themselves, and didn’t have much of a response towards Hammas when they were threatening the Israeli people in these settlements. There were many inaccuracies in the debates and resolutions. I think with the amount of imagination that went into this, and such a far off situation (that most don’t believe would feasibly happen) it’s amazing that so much was done. As a student it would be very interesting to sit in on a UN meeting or and peace talks between the two sides.
There was a lot in this class that I learned and didn’t truly understand from day one. I was not nearly as politically informed about this conflict as I had originally thought. The class debates were very interesting and sometimes incredibly frustrating; but that goes with debating. Everyone is very passionate about their opinions and views, which is what makes for a great debate. There are so many sides to the story of one side believing it has the divine right to the territory while the other side believes the same. A true learning experience came when writing my paper about Anti-Semitism of the Napoleonic era vs. that of the “New Anti-Semitist movement. I suppose it doesn’t come as a surprise to hear that Anti-Semitism is rising at an alarming rate in the Middle East. In the beginning of the class I often wondered why can’t these cultures coexist and cohabitate the land. I know realize the amount of hostility and animosity towards one another is to great. The class I found very thought provoking, especially such a hot topic in these past few and current year. From what I have learned I see there is truly a potential for a peace treaty and a resolution. However, the Allies of these countries should not have as large an impact as they do. Without the U.S. intervention of the UN resolutions, we would have been a lot closer to resolution.
I have learned a great deal in this course about the extremely complex Arab-Israeli conflict and the politics that go along. Before the class, I was fairly uninformed on the conflict and never thought about all of the actors and factors that play into it. I think the most significant thing I learned is that this conflict is the most important one today because it represents the inherent division between the Western world and the Middle East, and this divide is so strong and has huge implications for everyone.
As a student participating in the simulation, I found it a particularly effective learning experience. I was fortunate enough to portray a role completely the opposite of my own political views – Bill O’Reilly from Fox News. It was actually very exciting to look into how he would view the conflict, and discover what other views are out there. I gained a much greater understanding of the complexity of the conflict and also of trying to come to a solution when so many roles are involved – each having a very unique view on the conflict.
Not only have I learned factual information on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have also come to a better understanding of important concepts and processes that I can take with me in my future endeavors. By playing a journalist for Fox News, for example, I learned how one must act when trying to report what was happening, and how things are framed to fit certain perspectives. In general, I learned that it is hard to really understand what is truly going on in the region because every single thing we read, hear, and see on the matter has a bias. Finally, one of the most thrilling things for me was being in a classroom with students of all different backgrounds, many of whom have strong feelings and opinions towards one side of the conflict or the other. As a student who came into the class not having a strong position on the conflict, it was interesting to see and listen to the debates going on, and think about where those opinions are rooted. As we have all learned, it is certainly important to look at and analyze all sides of the conflict before coming to any logical conclusion or opinion on it.
In regard to the peace process it wasn’t until the simulation started last Tuesday that I understood just how complicated and confusing it would be. As I represented the Arab American Lobby when I met with the other Pro Palestinian members it seemed that we were all the same page and shared the same goal, that being the creation of a Palestinian state. But what I realized as we discussed it was that in addition to this larger goal almost every person had other interests they wanted fulfilled in the demands. I feel that these other demands, especially from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who had almost entirely separate agendas, served as a distraction and weakened our over all position. A Palestinian state was created in the end of our simulation but there were so many other issues left unresolved like the question of settlers in the West Bank and the status of East Jerusalem. Also the Palestinian group and the Israeli group never got to meet one on one, it was always through an intermediary like the UN or the United States, whom I felt interfered more than they helped especially during the meeting of the Security Council. Had the Israeli and the Palestinian groups been able to meet I feel like much more would have been accomplished with the absence of a third party.
I was very surprised to see groups that did not represent either the Israelis or the Palestinians play such a prominent part in the simulation. The United States, EU and UN definitely held all the cards and seemingly decided for everyone what would be the outcome. Sure there was a vote but they decided what issues were on the ballot. I feel that during parts of the simulation the playing of politics over took sounder judgment and the same issues were continually brought up like the Golan Heights and what Israel would do about Settlers. By playing my role I felt the powerlessness and disappointment that the Palestinians must feel everyday as their futures literally hang in the balance of argument and petty talk.
As a history major this course was very different from the ones I usually take, as it is happening now and most likely will continue for some time. Whenever I would read or watch anything on the Arab-Israel conflict I always felt frustrated with the violence and the seeming inability to negotiate. In some ways this course has served to further exacerbate my frustration at the conflict after seeing and learning and even writing about the injustices Palestinians face at the hands of the Israelis. This is not to say that I don’t feel the same way in regard to terrorism directed at Israel but it all becomes part of a vicious circle. I’ve learned how a very small minority of people are responsible for making the majority of decisions that affect the Middle East and I feel helpless to do anything to change it, leaving the only other option, which is to just wait it out.
I would just like to add to my previous post, because since then the Iraq Study Group has published their findings. They are calling for the United States to become more engaged and to actively seek a solution to the conflict. The commission argues that a solution would help to bring stability to Iraq and is therefore in our best interest. Just food for thought, that we may live to see peace in the Middle East.
The peace process is complicated because it entail's a people's emotions. Each side brings valid arguments to the table and believes that if it secedes that it is not upholding national interests. Another major problem to the peace process is getting major players involved. It is very difficult to get the Israeli Prime Minister and the Iran prime minister to sit in the same room. There are major differences in lifestyle. Very often, lack of communication is a problem between players among other things; these differences don’t usually play out in the favor of either party. A solution to a problem can take years to formulate because of the social construct of each group. To negotiate peace in a matter of years is such an arbitrary number that peace doesn’t occur. These differences usually prevent negotiations from happening.
Well I really did my research and I played The European Union, which was fairly difficult to decide how I was supposed to use my voice in negotiations. In the end I decided the most obvious thing to do was just to be the president of the EU, which was Matti VanHanen at the time he was also the Prime Minister to Finland. I tried my best to act like him as well because Prime Minister VanHanen was not that well spoken and fairly boring, but outright brilliant. During the simulation I was able to contribute a great deal, but I feel that the EU played the largest role in this simulation and this wouldn’t happen during formal discussions because for an actor to contribute correctly they must have something at stake. In essence my Matti VanHanen, played the largest role in getting a consensus on a peace plan.
If I can one thing from this simulation and the class, is that conflict initializes unity. If a tragedy occurs like something to the extent of the President dying is the only to push negotiations towards peace, then globally we should be very aware of our neighbors. As we see in class it only takes one to change policy and through history this has occurred. Now in class we learned how lobbyists also play a large role in policy construction. This alone could also influence peace negotiations or in the terms of the Arab/Israeli lobby we see a divide. There has to be an image already in place for each lobby. To that extent an individual can alter an ideal, for a generation or even a lifetime.
This post has been removed by the author.
The main thing that I learned about the peace process is that it is a daunting and challenging issue. It is very hard to find a solution that end up with best interest of everyone, and at the end of the negotiations some party is always going to be unhappy. I had initially heard that certain negotiations prolong for days and weeks but never knew why, however, taking part in this simulation made me realize that as a representative of a nation and people, you are never ready to concede anything unless it is in your best interest. It also made me realize that even the smallest issues involved are very vital for the outcome and if not correctly implemented can lead to disastrous outcomes or failures of the peace process and future negotiations.
As a student I realize now why it is hard for parties to negotiate, because there is always a sense of distrust of the opposing party, and that this distrust can further dichotomize the schisms that exists among nations and parties. For example, say hypothetically even if Hamas genuinely agrees for peace talks and end of violence as an Israeli I might always be paranoid and always sense that perhaps there is a bigger plan behind their initiatives (which might further cause Israel damage and so I shouldn’t agree to it. So there is always this sense of distrust among parties that is the biggest obstacle in the way of the peace process and negotiations.
Quite honestly I thought that I knew a lot about Arab Israeli politics, however after first couple of lectures I found myself as a new comer to the politics of Middle East, specifically in regards to the role that US plays in this conflict. I never went too deep into really seeing the different ways that US can change the whole equation of the issue in the Middle East if they change sides or withdrew their support from Israel (like the simulation). I also found out that this conflict is not just important for Palestinians or Israelis but in fact it affects everyone globally (whether you like it or not) as a whole in terms of religion, culture and politics, and that as a global citizen each of us should bear the burden of responsibility to help our fellow individuals.
To be honest, when I came into this class, I was probably the least informed out of all the students. I had very little knowledge of the situation in the Middle East and that was one of the reasons why I took the class. I wanted to be further educated on the matter. After this long semester, I have learned so many things that I did not know about before hand. I hadn’t realized all of the different barriers of peace in the region with some including divine rights, war, terrorism, demographics, and especially the US-Israeli Alliance. I used to think that the US was just being a good neighbor and helping out a fellow democracy but after taking this class, I have realized that this is not the exact case. Also, I did not know about all of the Jewish Terrorism in the region and how it was before Israel was controlled by the Jewish people.
Looking at the simulation, I think I learned a great deal about how the peace process works. My view of the peace process used to be that the major players controlled everything and wouldn’t let anyone else even talk. It was much like that for the beginning of the simulation, but as the discussions went on, the UN’s European Nations and Canada where able to develop a peace proposal. It was then when I realized how hard it would be to please everyone with anything we said. Nearly everyone had a problem with each and every one of the points in our proposal. After taking some extreme leaps of faith, we were able to pass some of the points. This made me understand my previous question of why things never get done in the UN. It is very hard to get anything done when you can’t agree on the simplest solutions. Portraying Canada, I realized how little influence Canada has. When I expressed my opinions, no one really cared and just kept going on with the meetings. None of the media wants to talk to any country that has no say over the delegation. Altogether, I thought that the simulation was quite informative and very interesting.
I think that after taking this course, I am able to understand both sides of the conflict much better than I used to. Like most of the students, I used to be biased toward Israel but after this class, I think I know have a fair balance of understanding and am not biased toward Jews or Arabs. I feel through the simulation and the group project, we were forced to utilize teamwork to get a common goal achieved which is a very useful ability to have. I think I have also learned to tolerate different types of people, even people I don’t agree with. This will be important especially when I have a steady job in the real world where I probably won’t agree with everyone I meet. I have learned that the Palestinians always get a bum rap from everyone even though they don’t deserve it. I also learned about the Israel government and how it is not a perfect democracy. Through my research paper, I have learned the difference between the different Jewish groups and how they don’t really like each other. Overall, I feel that this class was a very stimulating and I really enjoyed all of the conversations and discussions in it.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Coming into this class I knew very little the Middle East and Israel. Basically everything I know now I learned from the class, from creation of the Jewish State to the current issues that they face today. I always knew that the creation and existence of Israel was a major issue for many middle eastern nations and has caused discontent with the western world but always wondered what the big deal was. This class taught me why Israel is such a heated issue . The history of many of Israeli actions have brought in many players with differing goals, like the warring against other countries and gaining land from these countries as a result and today’s settlements and abuses at the checkpoints. There are many voices within Israel and division in Palestine and at the same time outside influences on both. This makes the peace process very slow when you are trying to compromise so that everyone is satisfied. Strong beliefs on all side also make agreements difficult when they are not willing to make certain necessary concessions. I can see why it is difficult for Palestinians to agree to making additional concession when they lived on the land for years and they are being pushed further and further away.
In the simulation, I took on the character of someone I totally disagreed with, Netanyahu. During the preliminary simulation, before I had fully researched my character, I found it difficult to sway from my own beliefs as I would agree with opinions that couldn’t be further from Netanyahu’s. When I learned more about him and was in the position of defending his beliefs, I started to understand where he was coming from and why he held those beliefs, even if I still disagreed. He strongly supports the settlements as a matter of security. While I still oppose settlements, I can see how dismantling them posses a security risk. By listening to the other students, I better understood the perceptions of other key actors in the conflict. The simulation reinforced the complexity of a peace process with many players and interests.
I have always held the same ideals of Israel that many Americans do. I think the media and the US government shapes these ideas for people who don’t know much about the conflict. I thought of the Palestinians as being angry and uncompromising without reason while Israeli leadership acted very democratically and peacefully. After taking this class and exploring the many issues, my stance and beliefs have greatly changed. I am more critical of Israel’s actions and sympathize with the Palestinians plight. Before I leaned towards Israel without really knowing why but now I lean opposite and have a good understanding. I hope soon public opinion will change and call Israel out and demand change.
Before I took this class, I was skeptical of both the Israelis and Palestinians because it seemed to me that the actions, particularly the violent actions, of both parties were questionable. Not surprisingly, the class has confirmed my suspicion, while providing me with facts to support the idea that neither side is committed to peace. The slow pace of the peace process and the steps backward are products of neither side being willing to compromise on key issues. Rather than seriously consider concessions, each side brandishes firearms and other weapons. My outlook for the region, gloomy before I took this class, has descended further into the negative. I cannot say I have no hope for peace, but it surely seems to be approaching that limit.
The simulation was fun, and it was interesting to see the interaction among the different parties and individuals involved. In addition, the suggestion that students undertake the role that they do not agree with produced an interesting, yet stereotypical, result – when the United Nations voted to place East Jerusalem under international control, the Arab block voted against the measure, meaning Israel would maintain complete control of the holy city. As a student, it makes me realize, on a general level, the consequences when a party will not accept a middle ground. The simulation was very effective in teaching us the dynamics of diplomacy in the context of the Middle East – the decisive issues and stubborn parties threaten to prevent any real progress toward peace and an end to the conflict. Although I still may lack some diplomatic skills, I did play Bush; I think I gained an increased appreciation for tact.
On a philosophic level, this course taught me the danger of not being willing to meet people halfway. We often speak about the dangers of unrestricted self-interest, and this conflict speaks volumes upon that subject. Israel and the Palestinians live in a state of nature; there is no independent arbitrator, only mediators such as the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. No organization or state can force the two sides to reach an agreement. The United Nations was designed to fill this role – to remove the nation-states from a state of nature and form an international society; however, unlike people entering into the society of the national-state, the modern nation-state does not give up its sovereignty, its power over itself. Perpetual peace may only be had when interdependence makes war too damaging to the economies of the world or when each nation-state cedes its sovereignty to a world-state.
It always seems so easy to me to work something out. I always assume people should just talk their problems out and eventually they will find common ground. I think i am very nieve. Negotiations were nearly impossible. I completely understand now that people are just not willing to comprimise their values.
The simulation taught me how to become an active listener. It was crucial that at all times I pay attention, reflect on what was being said, and be able to quickly construct a position. It was a frusterating yet important simulation. After participating, I dont know if I see any solutions for the Arab-Israeli conflict becuase I know understand how many players are involved.
The course taught me to look at each side of the argument. I knew very little about Palestinian refugees, Israeli positions regarding settlements, west bank and Gaza, the international response to the conflict, and the effects the Arab-Israeli conflict had on a global scale. I think the simulation was the most valuable aspect of the course. It allowed me to study a position I normally would not support. This was important because it taught me to value every position whether or not i would typically agree with it. Additioanlly I found the paper to be very helpful. I liked picking a narrow topic and researching it. THrough that research I learned so much more about both my paper topic and the entire conflict. The most valuable lesson i learned was the difficulty of negotiation, but also the necessity for negotiations. Without negotiations, nobody knows anything about any other position. Without that knowledge a resolution will be impossible.
I have learned that the Arab-Israeli peace process has been a long and complicated process and that it will most likely continue to be so. There are so many players involved that it makes it difficult to negotiate a solution to which everyone can agree to, especially when you involve such fundamentalist groups such as the Christian Zionists or the Palestinian organizations who use terrorist tactics. I also saw how almost everyone has some sort of stake in the outcome of this conflict, and that it makes a lot of other international issues, such as nuclear weapons issues, much more complicated as well.
I found the simulations to be a very helpful and unique experience. As you stated in class, it was interesting to see people play a role that had opinions opposite to their own. I think that situation was very good for the exercise as a whole because it helped people to look beyond their own biases and experience things from the other side of the argument. For my own part, playing Jordan was not a big step away from my personal beliefs, but I did find it interesting to see some of the more pro-Israel students playing parts that were more supportive of the Palestinians.
I have definitely learned the importance of having good negotiating skills in this course. I have also seen that it is important to be open-minded in situations like this and to really listen to what others say. It is very easy to excuse your opponent’s arguments if you don’t really know what their arguments are, but somewhat harder if you really sit down and listen and try to come to a mutual understanding.
This post has been removed by the author.
The peace process is hard to understand, other then both groups have legitimate (in my opinion) “rights” to the land. What make it even more difficult is the outside influences acting upon the two parties involved. The US calls for the Palestinians to back down, while our powerful Arab-nation allies call for Israel to concede. But its hard because both countries do not want to make concessions even if it does lead to peace. They all work under the notion, “if you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a glass of milk,” and that strategy is the never-ending cause to this conflict. Israel and Palestine must just stop after a concession is made to prove that notion untrue.
The simulation was very interesting for me in particular. I signed up to play Bill Clinton not knowing my “wife” would be killed in an IDF air strike. But for sakes of the simulation, and Bill Clintons feelings, I felt it would be better to understands had the fact that it was his wife be taken out of the equation. She was the American President, so that had direct implications on Israel. But as a staunch Israel supporter, I couldn’t agree with full withdrawal from our ally, or “freezing” of our support. That’s why I thought the consession that Olmert made was wrong, and should have been better thought out. Two state solution is the ultimate peace plan, but at what cost does this operation have to occur. How many people’s lives is worth the formation of two states?
I did not think originally that this class would be difficult, as I thought I had a pretty extensive knowledge on the subject, being in Israel twice in my short life. But, this class really opened my eyes. The peace process in Israel is ongoing mainly because many people believe as I did originally. The Jewish people have biblical “rights” to the land now knows as Israel. But does that mean, no one else could live there too. Its my feeling, that of course they can, it’s a free country. So why does Israel take land and set aside other land for a group of a particular ethnic background? I used to think Israel was right in their actions, and the factions of the Palestinians were wrong. My view on the whole peace process has certainly changed, meaning I am no longer believing every thing I hear on the news, and I try and look more into it. Israel to me is not right anymore, and the Palestinians aren’t wrong, but neither side has my full support. Peace in the region has my full support; we can only hope that a more rational way of attaining peace is figured out before the powder keg explodes once more.
Coming into this course, I did not have a strong background of the history or current situations of the conflict. The general impression I had was a struggle between religious groups, seeking to dominate the other. However, throughout the class and the preparation for the simulation and my paper, I learned a great deal more about each group’s stance and how the conflict affected them. I wanted to assume that if all parties could just be brought to a table and forced to talk for a few hours, agreements could be reached and the conflict could end in a peaceful manner. I know now that this procedure will take much longer than a few hours and will be very hard to negotiate with so many concerned interest groups. This is a humongous challenge to overcome, as I saw within the simulation.
Being a part of the simulation increased my understanding of the topic. The course prepared us with the history, knowledge of the situation, and discussion but until we actually became the roles of the main players I did not fully understand it all. There are so many people who want a say in the situation and it is really hard to regulate who is more important than the next. As a learning device, preparing for my role and seeing how just one character may affect the next allowed me to see the conflict in a different light and realize the importance of each person. This really helped wrap up the course for me personally.
Out of this class, I’ve learned how important it is to try to put your self in the other person’s shoes and realize there are always two sides to the story. It is has been very interesting hearing every one else’s perspectives on the same matter and discovering alternative ideas or theories. I do not experience working in teams very often and the group project helped me in learning to divide up work. My group worked together very efficiently and out meeting’s outside class sparked interesting dialogue, while at the same time, friendships. This course has forced me to look outside of the lecture or textbooks and conduct some of my own research on the subject. In that sense, I feel I broke outside of the normal barriers I create for myself in my courses as this course sparked interest to learn more.
- Jennifer Seelin
The Arab-Israeli conflict is a difficult issue to tackle because the problem has existed for many centuries and deals with the identity of the people involved. The peace process has yet to be truly effective and there are many reasons for this. Since religion is plays a central role, the whole aspect of the "divine" only fuels the fire. Another aspect that stands in the way of peace is the existence of radical religious groups who reject the idea of peace completely. As the Muslim Brotherhood, this was my stance. While I favored a two-state solution during the simulation because it would stop the oppression and unfair treatment of many of my brothers, the eradication of the Zionist state remains at the center of my organization's ideology.
The simulation was a very effective learning tool. Talking about something in a lecture format can be very informative but playing a role and acting it out helped me conceptualize the Arab-Israeli conflict better. One thing that could be improved was the preparation of the main actors involved so that a more concrete list of proposals that incorporated the needs of the many parties involved was ready for the UN on the final day.
The most important aspect of the conflict that was new to me is the construction of Israeli settlements. When I traveled to Israel this past summer, I was unaware that these illegal settlements existed. Settlements are one primary obstacle to peace in the region because they serve to remind Palestinians that another group controls land they did previously. This course was very beneficial to my concentration on Middle Eastern studies and I look forward to Islam in Global Affairs in the spring.
Before taking the course, I had no insight the Arab-Israeli conflict at all, with the exception of what was covered by US media. Furthermore, the issue of peace in the region had never taken my interest. Narrowing down everything that I have learned this semester regarding the peace process of conflict, perhaps the most paramount aspect of the course, for me, is the idea that peace can not come with treaties between the just the nations of Israel and Palestine, but negotiations also need to be conducted between Israel and Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. I learned the complexities of the issue to be something that I still do not fully understand as an American, and do not expect to before future studies. Though this course gave me a bank of new knowledge on the conflict, it is still very foreign to me.
The simulation was a great experience. The role playing was a good way to show the split between Isreali and Arab support. As Egypt, I attended the meetings for the Palestinian group, and it was interesting to see the distaste for Israel's history of behavior in the region, attacked mainly by Hamas and Hezbollah, and also from countries and organizations including Syria and the Palestinian Order. The simulation was helpful in the regard that it made the subject matter very tangible. Reading about UN resolutions and negotiations in books is difficult if the procedures of the UN are not understood. The simulation gives an insight to how these resolutions and simulations are conducted and organized, making it more meaningful, and displaying the tedious peace process of the Arab-Israeli conflict in a hands on approach.
I realized something when I was writting my paper last week, an idea that I credit to this course. I realized how sheltered the American public is to Arab-Israeli politics, and how misguided they are in regards to the conflict. It occured to me how poisoned the content of US media is on the issue. Prior to the course, I held views to the conflict based on what I would hear or read from various media outlets, but it is safe to say that now, I think about the matter in a whole new fashion. If I learned any one thing in this course to take with me on my way, it is that US media can no longer be trusted by me with issues comming out of the Middle East.
Before taking the course, I had no insight the Arab-Israeli conflict at all, with the exception of what was covered by US media. Furthermore, the issue of peace in the region had never taken my interest. Narrowing down everything that I have learned this semester regarding the peace process of conflict, perhaps the most paramount aspect of the course, for me, is the idea that peace can not come with treaties between the just the nations of Israel and Palestine, but negotiations also need to be conducted between Israel and Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. I learned the complexities of the issue to be something that I still do not fully understand as an American, and do not expect to before future studies. Though this course gave me a bank of new knowledge on the conflict, it is still very foreign to me.
The simulation was a great experience. The role playing was a good way to show the split between Isreali and Arab support. As Egypt, I attended the meetings for the Palestinian group, and it was interesting to see the distaste for Israel's history of behavior in the region, attacked mainly by Hamas and Hezbollah, and also from countries and organizations including Syria and the Palestinian Order. The simulation was helpful in the regard that it made the subject matter very tangible. Reading about UN resolutions and negotiations in books is difficult if the procedures of the UN are not understood. The simulation gives an insight to how these resolutions and simulations are conducted and organized, making it more meaningful, and displaying the tedious peace process of the Arab-Israeli conflict in a hands on approach.
I realized something when I was writting my paper last week, an idea that I credit to this course. I realized how sheltered the American public is to Arab-Israeli politics, and how misguided they are in regards to the conflict. It occured to me how poisoned the content of US media is on the issue. Prior to the course, I held views to the conflict based on what I would hear or read from various media outlets, but it is safe to say that now, I think about the matter in a whole new fashion. If I learned any one thing in this course to take with me on my way, it is that US media can no longer be trusted by me with issues comming out of the Middle East.
Coming into the class I did not know very much about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. This class has taught me alot more than I think any other class on this topic could. It made me view the conflict from different points of view and establish my own opinion on it. I also was able to distinguish which country I am more sympathetic towards and which pieces of the peace process I would some day like to see occur. I have learned that the peace process is one that is going to be very difficult to achieve. Each side feels they have different wants and needs and it is going to be difficult for them to ever settle on terms that they agree with.
The simulation was a great learning experience. It really taught me alot about how much every country and person can impact these peace making decisions and how it wouldn't just be the two countries effect by the outcomes of the peace process that it would effect many countries. It was fun to get to pretend to be in charge of an entire countries decisions playing these roles, it made me realize how important UN ambassadors jobs are and how much of a countries say in the happenings of the world depend on them working with the UN. I think having activities like this should be more prevelant in classes, because it makes students think on our toes and not just read from a text book to find specific answers. It is a chance for us to put our own opinions asside and to play a role and have to use what our characters opinions would be rather than our own. I wish there were more oppurtunities in classes to participate in activities like this, I think it is a great way to learn and to understand concepts more then just by studying and taking a test.
In this class I saw not just myself but my fellow students open their eyes to both sides of this conflict. This class taught us both sides of a conflict and then let us decide our own oppinions based on what we learned. From the first day there were many people who were extremely to one side of the argument but by the last day of class you were able to see a change in their points of view. I think that this class did a very good job of keeping people open minded and to see the whole picture and not just one sided of it. Everyone including myself came out of this class with open minds and no longer closed minds and I think this way of thinking will help us in the future, especially for those of us who want to persue careers in the government and could some day be dealing with these exact topics when it actually will have an impact rather than just doing a simulation in class. i think this class was able to teach me that I can have my own opinion and can speak it and shouldnt be afraid to do so.
Coming into the course, I didn't know very much about the Middle East except for the occansional media article. Every day there seemed to be an added new dimension to the subject. It was amazing to see how much there was that was publicly available to know but few people actually know about. The settlements, the history, the supporters of Israel, etc. It seems that those who hold power have no inclination to change or do the right thing unless it's in their interest.
Simulations were interesting because they showed that the facts and events themselves aren't necessarily the most important thing. The many actors brought their own unique features that strengthened their position or harmed it. Some people automatically were turned off to each other due to their positions and unwilling to listen to compromise.
The course taught a lot about progress and compromise. That events are constantly changing, and the good leaders are those that understand this. It also taught me how different people can witness the same events and yet feel completely different. How there's not necessarily ever a right decision but there're good decisions. A lot of the world's problems are similiar ones faced day to day. How to trust someone who hasn't been reliable. How to do the right thing even if it's not necessarily in your interest or your people's interest to do so in the short term. How emotions run into politics and can strengthen or destroy it.
One of the most important things to me that I have learned in this class is the Israeli identity as a whole… I didn’t really know much about it, didn’t know that the very first terror act was done by the Israeli’s (which was very interesting to me, because all you hear about and continuously hear about is Arab terrorists) also our presentations were very helpful … I wasn’t aware of how open and unbiased the Israeli press was even more than here in the United States . As one of my Israeli Refusenik characters said : "People in Israel didn't have a lot of patience for me,"… "But compared to here [United States], they were very patient. Here you have to identify yourself in an instant. 'Are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel?' There is no in between." -Rosen-Zvi.
I have personally never heard of the Refuseniks so doing the simulations not only exposed me to a totally different character, but it has also showed me how lengthy and complicated it is for the different parties to reach an agreement ! Meetings went on and on without an overall solution!! They sometimes even diverted from the main subject which was very dangerous because in issues like this its very important to stay on topic and to focus on the main subject!! One other factor that seemed to always get in the way was the fact that most parties couldn’t and wouldn’t make any concessions, every party came into the meeting w/ a set of goals that they were determined to reach and had no alternatives for.. which seemed threatening not just in these simulations but in any real peace process’ meeting… obviously due to the fact that this is what hinders the peace procedure !!
Overall, in the beginning I felt that I had a pretty good sense of the conflict, but as we examined it deeply I feel much more well-informed. As to the U.S.’s role and how major their support for the state of Israel is as well as how things would dramatically change if they even sensed the U.S.’s hesitation towards them wasn’t very shocking to me. in fact, now I feel that in order for the peace process to really take effect the U.S needs to step up and take real action… meanwhile, the whole crises lies w/in their hands !!
-Amirah Alkotf
Taking a cursory look at the nature of the peace process through the lenses of CNN and other media outlets, people, including me, had come to the consensus that peace negotiations were just photo shoots for figures like Arafat or Sharon to proliferate and potentiate their political agendas. Contrastingly, marking the conclusion of the course, I gained a profound appreciation regarding the dynamic nature of the peace process. The notion that peace is something hard to come by was further substantiated by the occurrences in the simulation as the Arab states refused to pass the resolution designating Jerusalem as an international city, which was rather analogous to the Arab abstinence in the 1947. There is so much to gain and lose by either side. Nonetheless, the world is not entirely equitable for all and that is what we must change in order to get peace.
The simulation was a great demonstration of the difficulty in spearheading a two state solution that is auspicious for both the Israelis and Palestinians. Reporting as a correspondent of Ha’aretz, I took a critical perspective of the Olmert regime, while staying a moderate Pro-Israeli. A great deal of the Israeli public is discontent with the policies of their nation, especially the handling of the Palestinian population. There is a misconception in coffee shop discussions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli situation representing both groups as hardcore nationalists, which is not the case. Ha’aretz is a rather progressive paper that provides a great deal of criticism of its government, which is a reflection of a great proportion of Israelis. The Kantian ideal of perpetual peace in the region could be installed via an establishment of a democratic Palestinian state with open borders with Israel. A lot of Ha’aretz reporting dealt with exposing the vile injustices subjected upon the Palestinians through an Israeli perspective, which I believe was manifest in my part. Moreover, I understand the great deal of Israeli misrepresentation through the actions of the hardliners in Likuud that are tantamount to the right in America. Also, the other participants of the simulation were mostly taciturn, which kind of put the simulation on the shoulders of only a handful of participants. Also, the Europeans could have provided a copy of their resolutions to everyone there to preclude wasting time asking everyone of what was in the document.
As a student majoring biology and philosophy, I am seldom exposed to heated political arguments in the classroom, especially related to the always emotionally effusive topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I learned a great deal of statistics related to the Israel occupation. The rampant unemployment and absolute Israeli hegemony are the primary contributing impetuses in molding the West Bank and Gaza into a region conducive to terrorism. After learning of the Israeli enormities subjected on the Palestinians, I challenge anyone to find a population that is exploited and ethnically cleansed devoid of an ideological extremist element. I was entirely ignorant of the degree of occupation evident in the Palestinian lands, as I never knew the extent of Israeli settlements and punitive Israeli property laws. The fact that the occupied territories are replete with massive fortresses shadowing over Palestinian populations living in squalor is euphemistically called neighborhoods is information that the general public should know. Also, learning that the conflict is not just about land, but about drinking water brings another dynamic in my understanding of the conflict Another concept broached in class that elicited awe was the manner in which the Israel Lobby, including Christian Evangelicals, has such hegemonic control in foreign policy. I learned a great deal and hope to continue my education in this particular field and can’t wait to for a heated debate!
When I registered for this course, I thought I knew a fair amount about the conflict, but I quickly learned that I was completely wrong in that belief. My knowledge of the subject was entirely superficial, based primarily on American news coverage of the conflict and my own interpretation of the biases involved in the reports. I now have a far greater appreciation for the complexity and historical involved.
The simulation was very interesting to me. It gave me a better understanding of the difficulty involved in peace negotiations. Granted, the situation presented in the simulation might have been somewhat outlandish and even more complex than any one that could be reasonably expect to transpire, but the negotiations made me appreciate the number of interests involved in any international debate. I recognized that this conflict, and by extention any other, are not nearly as black and white as they seem. My role as the Christian Zionists (in addition to writing my paper about them) gave me a great understanding of the profound impact of a group of people who I personally consider to be crazy can have on legitimate and very important issues. All the same, looking at it from their perspective made me feel legitimate frustration, similar to the one that lobby would experience should America's leadership abandon them and cease to be influenced by that movement.
Having completed the course, I now have a much better grasp of the duality of the conflict and general state of affairs in Israel and Palestine. What I once saw as a historical and religious conflict, I can more appreciate for its social and political causes and implications. I had heard about "settlements" before this class, but I really didn't know exactly what they were and the influence they had on Palestinian life. I also have a completely different outlook on Palestinian terror, and no longer look at it as a unilateral form of agression so much as a response . All the same, the class and the things it taught me are somewhat depressing, as my knewfound knowledge of the conflict, combined with my appreciation for the complexity of international peace negotiations, have shown me how difficult peace will be to achieve there.
Coming into this class I felt I had an overall strong understanding of the overall middle east political atmosphere but a narrow understanding of the israel and palestine conflict. This class helped me truly recognize the strong dynamics of the political situation that the conflict is. Exposing the intricate web of both the arab and jewish lobbies,intrests and foreign allies that make up the players of the situation. It exposed the powers of AIPAC and like lobbies which I had not known carried so much might.
The simulation exposed the many difficulties of interacting in show a dizzing amount of interests. The different talks and negotations included a huge amount of different interests realtively similar to such talks that occur in real life. The simulation showed how the actions of one player can really effect the progress of the rest. The other interesting lesson it exposed was the difficulty of maintaining a clear message and focus both within a certain interest and all of the players a whole. I found it difficult for the many members of my interest to form and stick to a cohesive message while this same problem surfaced in the different negotations and talks by each respective body i.e. different quartet meetings and the UN
This course exposed through the lectures,discussions and simulation that at the root of all politics is human nature. Even in a class where the education and knowledge of the situation was high different people familar with the same facts interperted and argued very differently. Exposing the very reason for the prolonged conflict. No matter the negotations both sides have strong motivation and convictions to procure what they feel is their right. Behind these key players are the many relationships and lobbies that want to ensure that their interests are preserved again exposing the power and influence on political progress on the attributes of human nature.
Upon reflecting on what I’ve learned from our simulation, I realized I sounded a bit cynical about the bureaucratic peace process; about the bureaucratic decision-making process of any kind. While student’s lack of preparation or real experience likely was responsible for much of this, I must admit I observed a peculiar tendency for nearly every representative to utilize the tactics of stalling, subversion of questioning, and dodging commitment. Often times a representative would be pressed to proclaim a definitive policy stance on something, only to be heard spouting off a few sentences about “we’re looking into….options….to…discuss….this further….,” or other similarly effective ways of saying something without really saying anything. This certainly isn’t the only observance I had of the simulation, but it certainly has stuck out in my memory of the grueling pace of bureaucratic decision making and policy formulation.
I really enjoyed my role as the representative of Al Jazeera; I tried to pick a role that would allow me to step far outside my own views and to see the world through a different lens- that of the Arab world. Ever since my spring 06’ Global Agenda course that featured a live video conference every week with a Lebanese class in Beirut, I have developed the habit of checking Al Jazeera multiple times a day. I used to do this because I possessed an innate curiosity in gauging the pulse of the Arab World’s heartbeat; conversely, I didn’t actually use Al Jazeera’s content as my actual source of news as much as to ‘get a taste for the other side.’ My utilization of the Al Jazeera website as a legitimate source of my news didn’t come about until I took on this role. As I tried to find a “bias” in the Al Jazeera content, I realized that the stories were well-researched, sophisticated and analytical; the bias was really only exemplified in its obvious emphasis on matter concerning its main constituents: Arabs around the world. However with the launch of Al Jazeera’s English-language broadcasts around the world, its main constituency may well soon constitute people far outside the Middle East.
Over the entirety of this course I’ve sharpened a couple critical skills that will undoubtedly help me in my professional life. During the course of my research for my honors paper on Israel’s nuclear policy, I’ve developed an appreciation for scholarly research that I had not really developed before; I used to include the minimum number of outside sources to satiate the professor. This time, however, I’ve embraced the idea that other individuals are undoubtedly more knowledgeable on the subject at hand and that I am only doing myself a disservice by not utilizing their expertise. Most notably perhaps is a process I’ve been working on throughout my tenure here at college: to open my mind to acceptance of other ideas and concepts, and more difficultly to let go of ideas and beliefs I’ve held as true when they are proved insufficiently accurate. As professor Khan put it bluntly, (not verbatim) “students are here to think, and I’m here to inform them that they’re thinking wrong.”
-Brendan Taubman
First, I've learned that there are so many more aspects to the Arab-Israeli Conflict than I could ever imagine. I feel like the peace process is such a difficult undertaking because of the number of people and groups involved, each of which is highly self-interested. I also feel like I've thoroughly overlooked the importance and influence wielded by groups like Hezbollah.
The actual simulation gave me a great respect for politicians. Even though normally I consider them all to be corrupt and morally inconsiderate of their constituents, I can't believe the amount of pressure and responsibility they assume. It was hard enough speaking in front of a class about a hypothetical situation, so I can't imagine what it must be like to represent an entity as large as the United States under the highly-scrutinizing microscope of global politics. This simulation also made me realize that perhaps too many parties are involved, and its possible that totally disinterested parties can have a profound affect on policy outcomes. As a representative of the Palestinian Authority, and because the hypothetical events of the simulation cast favor in my direction, I feel much sympathy towards the Palestinians because its more than probable that they will never get a break like this.
Generally the course enlightened me about much more than just the Arab-Israeli Conflict, though it was always at the center of attention. The course made me turn a more suspicious eye towards the actions of Israel and also those of the Pro-Israeli lobbies in the US. Coming into this course I knew practically nothing about the situation except that there was a lot of fighting going on. Moreover, I had no personal invested interest because I'm not religious, Jewish, Arab, or part of any other involved group. Now I see how involved I am in the situation just by being a tax payer. I thought it was extremely interesting hearing this course taught from the perspective of a Muslim rather than your average white old-fogey professor type. I think it would have been beneficial to hear a lecture from a person of Jewish heritage as a foil to Khan's own upbringing. Overall, the course was an eye-opener and it thoroughly heartened me away from my previous stance of indifference towards the conflict.
*this is late because the blog hates me and i was not about to spend hours figuring it out while i'm in the middle of 15pages, studying for something else and having sever ocular pain.*
I did not realise how large a part Christian Zionists played in the conflict, or to the extent that Brooklyners are colonising Palestine.
The simulations made me realise how difficult it is to get things done, because people don't want to vote for things that leave concerns unaddressed, and that there just isn't enough time for every party concerned to say what it needs to say, and often, if it isn't recognised as a country, it won't be heard at all.
The course improved my ability to see from other perspectives; it is easy to see things from an opposing point of view, but a view that approaches true apathy towards such an important issue, occasionally skewed by personal interests alone, was truly enlightening.
Post a Comment
<< Home