Madison — To Ali Abootalebi, a University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire professor of political science, the problem of peace in the Middle East is rooted in three tiers: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the lack of democracy in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam.
But to Nadav Shelef, a UW-Madison Israel studies professor, “the problem at the heart of the problem … at least to some extent, revolves around the foundational questions at the heart of any society.”
These questions, he continued, include “Who are we?” and “Where is our homeland?” Difficulties, therefore, arise when two groups of people, as they have, stake their claim on the same land.
“If I believe that a particular territory is the exclusive homeland of my nation, granted to me by God and history … (We are) unlikely to change our minds,” he said.
These scholars presented their views at the fifth installment, “Paths to Peace,” of the five-part series “Academy Evenings: Understanding the Middle East.”
Sponsored by the Pleasant T. Rowland Foundation, this final segment took place on Oct. 11 at the Overture Center for the Arts. An estimated 300 people attended.
Abootalebi suggested several areas of improvement that he believed would bring the Middle East closer to peace.
“First of all,” he said, “I think we need a more honest and open debate about the Middle East.”
Abootalebi criticized U.S. foreign aid policies, saying, “Israel, the size of New Jersey, gets as much money as two continents and the Caribbean.”
After saying that “this policy is imbalanced in favor of Israel and it’s misdirected by the pro-Israeli lobby,” he suggested strengthening the pro-Arab lobby.
Nevertheless, “I would argue that support for the state of Israel is not necessarily in conflict with the resolution of the Palestinian problem,” he said. “However, we have made it seem to be in conflict, and the main reason behind that is the lobbyists.”
In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Abootalebi asserted, “We need to resolve it once and for all, no buts and no ifs.”
As for the resolution, he claimed, “There are people in the middle who would be satisfied with a two-state solution.”
Abootalebi’s other suggestions included improving relations with Iran and Syria and supporting modern Islamic movements as opposed to radical movements.
Shelef stated that a direct path to peace was too simple of a solution, but rather “we are better served thinking about the processes that are more or less likely to bring about conflict-resolution.”
He said three types of reasoning would define these processes. Though all are logical, there is serious fault with the first two while the third is the most dynamic and probable solution.
The first deals with a tangible change of structure.
“If realities change, if we create different facts on the ground, the various regions will recognize them and have no choice but to adapt to their thinking,” Shelef said, dictating the basis for the first argument.
He claimed that this is the rationale behind the Israeli settlement movement and barrier in parts of the West Bank.
This argument fails, however, as Shelef points out, where each side “points to different realities on the ground that have to be changed.”
Shelef’s second solution is a “change in incentives we offer for the political leaders in the region.”
“If you play by the rules, you’ll have access to resources and power,” Shelef said. This, according to Shelef, lacks potential simply because, “people don’t change their minds that easily.”
The third and most probable solution involves compromise.
Through a series of minor modifications for “short-term gains,” Shelef argued that the give and take nature of the consensus builders could ultimately carry the Middle East to a peaceful two-state solution.
A former Chronicle intern, Kiera Wiatrak is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Loading ...