The ThinkND Podcast

What Do We Owe Each Other? Part 9: Peaceful Co-Existence Among Israelis and Palestinians: Vision for a Shared Future

• Think ND

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:36:56

Join us for a conversation among Israelis, Palestinians, and others who care deeply about the region and seek to break through the status quo and overcome division and polarization. Supported by the work of the OneVoice Movement, these peacemakers advocate for a shared future that unlocks the full potential of both peoples. They also seek to empower voices that foster depolarization in discourse about the region in the United States in order to build support for the notion that Israeli-Palestinian coexistence is possible.

This event is co-sponsored by the Notre Dame International Security Center (NDISC) and the Ansari Institute for Global Engagement with Religion and the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the Keough School of Global Affairs. 

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

  • Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
  • Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.
1

Welcome. My name's Michael Desch. I'm a professor of political science. I'm also The Brian and Janelle Brady family director of the Notre Dame International Security Center. we're one of the, many co sponsors, of this event NDISC, the center I run tends to focus on national security or international security issues. And certainly The ongoing Israel Palestine conflict has tremendous national security implications, not only, for the people directly, affected by it, but also for the region, and the rest of the world. we were very happy to, co sponsor this because these, significant international security implications pale in the face of the political and human consequences of this ongoing conflict. And it's a conflict that's not only been ongoing and incredibly bloody, but also one that it's been hard to talk about in a way that produces productive dialogue. when the provost tasks V and Mahan, to put together a series of events, I was grateful to him for doing that, and also grateful to them for inviting me to, be a co sponsor. it's also my privilege to, introduce, our moderator for this evening, my colleague Lisa Shirk, who's the Richard G. Starman Sr. Professor of the Practice of Peace Studies at Notre Dame's Kroc Institute. for International Peace Studies, which is also a part of the Keough School for Global Affairs. without further ado, I'll turn it over to Lisa and, again, welcome everybody.

2

Thank you, everyone. May I first start by asking you to please silence your cell phones? Tonight, we'll hear from Israelis and Palestinians from the PeaceWorks Foundation and the One Voice Movement. Coexistence, part of the title of tonight's event, means living side by side with equal rights, equal justice, and equal safety for all. The point of this event is to hear firsthand from Israelis and Palestinians who are both critical and honest about the current situation while holding out hope that peace is possible. Our guests say they are committed to moving a critical mass of Israelis and Palestinians to reject the status quo and unlock the full potential of both peoples. In the words of the PeaceWorks Foundation and OneVoice, here with us tonight, we will learn how they are trying to combat pervasive hopelessness and dysfunctional political cultures. Some believe this event is a distraction from ending the war or an attempt to normalize the status quo. This is untrue and unfair. No one here wants the status quo. We reject the idea that dialogue is useless or irrelevant. Dialogue does not mean avoiding hard issues. Tonight, we will talk about difficult issues, power imbalances, violated dignity, and humanity. At the Kroc Institute, we know from research, wars end in two ways. Between 10 and 20 percent end through military victory, and the other 80 to 90 percent of wars end through negotiation. Coexistence cannot come through denial separation or domination. Tonight we will talk about those difficult issues. we must be able to look at our own implicated situation here at the University of Notre Dame. So I want to offer a land acknowledgement to recognize our presence on the traditional homelands of Indigenous peoples. including the Haudenosaunee, the Miami, the Peoria, and particularly the Potawatomi, who have been using this land for education for hundreds of years and continue to do They were removed under duress and continue to live with the impacts of displacement today. Indigenous people here and everywhere are stewards of the land's past and advocates of the present and future. Acknowledging these injustices, we commit ourselves here to supporting Indigenous sovereignty and thriving with atonement, respect, and dignity at Notre Dame. Tonight's event is part of a year long series. in the Notre Dame Forum on Palestine and Israel. In the first session of this series, we learned that the Hamas massacre of 1200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 254 people on October 7 must be understood within a much longer history, the 76 year history of Israeli domination and occupation. of Palestinian homes, cities, and lands. October 7th also took place within the 2, 000 year history of Christian violence toward Jews in Europe, and it reminded many Jewish people everywhere of the Holocaust. We learned in the last event that it was Christian anti Semitic violence in Europe that drove millions of Jews to escape to what was then mostly an Arab region called Palestine. Beginning around 1880 1900. We learned about the Zionist movement in the last session to establish a Jewish state and its use of violence against Palestinians from the very beginning to make way for Jewish refugees. We learned that neighboring Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 and again in 1967 in opposition to the creation of an Israeli state on Palestinian home cities and land. At the last event, we learned the terrible death toll in Gaza, which has risen since the last event. The UN estimates 43, 000 known deaths from violence, the International Court of Justice has denounced the plausible genocide in Gaza through both mass bombing and the restriction of humanitarian aid. In October, Brown University released documentation that over 64, 000 Gazans have died from starvation. The first session looked at the map of the region, which I'm going to pull up here just because many Americans don't really know what we're talking about when we say Gaza, which is in the left hand triangular corner or the West Bank. which is separated from Gaza. we learned that there is continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, territory set aside for a future Palestinian state. Since the last event, the US has elected a new president, who has told the Israeli prime minister that he supports Israeli forces to finish the job in Gaza. Over the last week in Amsterdam, Israelis shouted hateful comments about Arabs. Some chanted, why is there no school in Gaza? There are no children left there. In response, Gideon Levy from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz describes an ugly criminal pogrom against Israeli soccer fans. And we know that almost two dozen were hospitalized from that violence just over the weekend in Amsterdam. Gideon Levy goes on to note that similar pogroms, violent pogroms or violent attacks, they are carried out by Israeli settlers almost every day in the West Bank. Last week the UN warned the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza, especially children, is at imminent risk of dying. As a Catholic university committed to human rights and human dignity for all, we must denounce all of this violence and honor all of this life. As a Catholic university, those of us who are Christians are part of this story. We're not observers from afar. Christian anti Semitic violence and immigration laws in Western countries closed the door to Jewish immigration. Christian Zionists used their political power to financially support the ongoing theft of Palestinian land to bring about a greater Israel, a condition they view as necessary for Christ's return. And it is U. S. made bombs landing on Palestinians and Lebanese families today. Those of us who are Christians and U. S. taxpayers are part of this story. We also want coexistence with equality and dignity for all at Notre Dame. We have work to do here. We want this campus to be safe for all of our students. We need to make sure that Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims, Jews, and Arab students feel safe and are not targeted for their political views. We need to be able to speak out as Israeli leaders are calling for genocide against Palestinians. And we also need to speak out on those who are calling for attacks on Jews anywhere. We need the ability to dialogue with each other about how our community's investments enable or obstruct pathways to coexistence. At the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies here at Notre Dame, we promote the idea of strategic peace building. One of the core conceptual frameworks we use is this diagram by peace scholar Adam Curl. Strategic peacebuilding requires both balancing power through nonviolent social movements, including protest, and robust dialogue, deliberation, and negotiation to build awareness and trust between groups. Research shows that intergroup dialogue is an effective way to expand movement membership and develop collective strategies that can break through the status quo. Coexistence is not possible without roughly balanced power. You don't have successful negotiations or a just peace when the parties have vastly different levels of power. And you also don't get a just peace when there is not high awareness and trust between groups. Right now, we know that power is not balanced. Israel is a nuclear state with by far the most powerful army in the region. it is immensely wealthier than the Palestinian Authority. The U. S. and other Western countries, give Israel more foreign aid than any other country and have backed Israeli policy. But Palestinians are not powerless. They have agency. They have many allies around the world who stand with them against Israeli occupation and want to honor the dignity of Palestinian lives. protest is essential to also bringing about peace. Both Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi led nonviolent movements to disrupt unequal and oppressive systems. King and Gandhi said the opportunities for dialogue should always be taken. In their writings on social justice and social change, they believe there is never a time that dialogue is not appropriate, and both of them practiced this even when it was most difficult, as it is this moment with our guest here tonight. Dialogue alone cannot bring change. We know that because dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians has been happening for decades. To date, the failed negotiation and peace processes between Israeli and Palestinian leaders are an indication there is no sustainable outcome without roughly balanced power and a recognition of interdependence. Dialogue must be able to face hard truths, and tonight you will hear about the current crisis, what future coexistence might look like and what Israelis, Palestinians, and those of us here at Notre Dame might do to support future coexistence, our speakers will share with us their work to build the human infrastructure needed to create the conditions for a just and negotiated resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. At Notre Dame, our president, Father Daud has asked us to reflect on what we owe each other? May we each think about this as we listen tonight. Let me introduce our speakers. Tahila Wenger is the deputy director of the Geneva Institute in Israel, an NGO that promotes a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians through diplomatic, educational, and public tools. Her work at the Geneva Institute includes organizing and facilitating Joint Dialogue Forums for Stakeholders, Advocacy, and Outreach with Israeli Decision Makers and International Stakeholders. She has a BA in Politics from Princeton University and a MA in Diplomatic Studies from Tel Aviv University. Mr. Nadel Fokaha is the Director General of the Palestinian Peace Coalition, and also at the Geneva Institute. This is a non profit Palestinian organization, that promotes a peaceful settlement for the Israeli Palestinian conflict based on the two state solution as envisioned in the Geneva Initiative. Fokaha has contributed to several political dialogues, including on security, borders, Jerusalem, water, refugees, as well as reconciliation related issues. Fokaha served as an advisor to the PLO, Secretary General between 2003 and 2008, and a member of the Palestinian Israeli Joint Economic Committee. Ezeldin Mazri was born in Gaza in 1971. He has a degree in international relations and conflict resolution, and he worked in Gaza schools as a teacher and administrator before he became the first secretary of the Palestinian Diplomatic Corps, overseeing organizations working on promoting peace between Palestine and Israel. From 2006 to 2015, he directed the Gaza office first, and then the Ramallah office of One Voice. He returned to the United States in 2015 and is currently the PeaceWorks Foundation and One Voice Movement chief field officer. Ellen Garfinkel is also part of the team as one of the organizers, and I'm going to invite her up to share a little bit more. She is the program coordinator from PeaceWorks Foundation based in Washington, D. C. Thank you all for being here tonight.

4

Thanks so much everyone for being here and thank you to Notre Dame and all the different institutes hosting us here tonight. We're really excited to be here. my name is Ellen Garfinkel. I'm the program coordinator at PeaceWorks. I joined the team back in September and I graduated college in 2023 in North Carolina. I just wanted to give you a little bit of background about the program that we're running. PeaceWorks has started this program called the PeaceWorks on Campus Program, and we're traveling to almost 20 different universities across the country in the month of November with Nidal and Tejila and also two other speakers in the Northeast. We're about halfway through our tour, and it's been a fun road trip experience here in the Midwest. one of the main things about our program is that we don't want it to be just a speaker series where we come once and then leave We really want to create lasting relationships with not only faculty and staff but also students across these different universities. And we know that what people need right now, whether you're faculty staff or a student, it's not one size fits all. Maybe some people are looking for updates from the region. Maybe some people are really intrigued by the conversation today and want to hear more specifically about peace building work in the organizations on the ground. Maybe people are looking for an American take on what's happening, hearing from former diplomats and ambassadors. Or maybe people are just looking to be connected with others across the country that are looking to promote the narrative of peace and pro solution. Ez and I have business cards with us that have a QR code that will take you to a forum that we're using to gather this information to help shape our program We want our program to be student run and meet the needs of people right now. We would love to talk with you or connect online. one of the best ways to do that is by filling out this form. It asks for a name email and has you rank some different options as to what you might be interested in engaging with to help us get a better sense of what our program can do for everyone that we are meeting on this tour. please come find us, talk to us after. I'll stand at the back and hand out cards, we would love to hear from you and create these connections. thanks much for being here tonight and I hope everyone enjoys the conversation. Thank

5

you.

6

Thank you so much, Alan.

2

All right, let's start off tonight, by just, if each of us can tell us why do you do this work and why now? And as, because you're from Gaza, I think, why don't we start with you?

7

Yes, of course. I do this work, because it touched me on the personal level as Palestinian from, the Gaza Strip. growing up in Gaza. and living under the Israeli military occupation, and, coming to the United States and studying politics and going back to Gaza, trying to be part of the Palestinian state building, Unfortunately, when I was in Gaza, I witnessed, three wars. The war of 2008, 2009, and 2012, and 2014, and I was evacuated, being an American, I was evacuated twice by the U. S. Embassy out of, Gaza under fire. I do this work of peace building because The other alternative is violence. The other alternative is war. And I witnessed destruction and war in Gaza, and this is not a way, to live. I'm here today with you preaching peace and bridge building, even though my house in northern Gaza, in Bethlehem, was bombed and destroyed by the Israeli army and my whole neighborhood, Al Khazan neighborhood in northern Gaza, in Bethlehem village, was also wiped out by the Israelis. I lost approximately 80 members of the Masri family to the Israeli bombing. Those are civilians, not gunmen. That doesn't shake my belief that the only way forward Is peace between us, the Israelis. Because the alternative is just continuation of war. And I don't want war for me, my kids, my family, and my people. That's why I do this work.

8

Thank you.

9

Good evening. Liza, thank you so much. I would like also To thank the University of Notre Dame, to thank, the wonderful audience who are with us in this hall, whether the faculty or the students. This also reflects how relevant and how important our issue of the Palestinian Israeli conflict when it comes to the international context. For me as a person who was born and grew up in Palestine. It is extremely important for me, this dedication and work when it comes to the future of my people, when it comes to the future of our new generation, to be dedicated and to work hard for the end of occupation and for the future. Realization of peace always based on the two state solution. I was born in a small village in the Jordan Valley, and I'm living in Ramallah. And for me, even the drive nowadays Between the two points, which are supposedly taking in normal circumstances, if there is no such obstacles and if there are no such checkpoints, it should be maximum 35 40 minutes. Nowadays, it's taking this path or this tour more than two hours. We are, as Palestinians, going through a very hard reality, and we firmly believe that the only way is to get out of the status quo, which is non sustainable and non bearable. And the only way, actually, is to work as a peace camp, to coordinate and work closely with the Israeli peace camp when it comes. to the realization, of an end game settlement to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. why now within the context and the role of the international community when there is such An ongoing war nowadays on the Gaza Strip when there are, such, a violent reality in the West Bank also attributed to the settlers violence. We believe always our voice should make difference when we are reaching out to the international community besides doing it locally in Palestine, we are reaching out with this message to mobilize and lobby for an end game settlements because once again, we believe that the position of the international community matters when it comes to the ultimate solution.

10

Thanks, Nidal. My name is Tila. I am from Tel Aviv, director, deputy director of, Geneva Initiative Israel. I grew up in a. Religious Jewish family and community and our narrative, around the conflict was very simplistic. it was us versus them. We are good. They are bad. We want peace and life. They want death. It wasn't anything beyond that. the first time met and spoke with Palestinians from the West Bank, was in, 2016 on, an intensive dialogue seminar. So when I say what we do works, I know from personal experience. it was the first time, I realized that everything I cared about and believed in, in terms of, the future of my people and what I consider to be our historic homeland was dependent on the security and realization of rights of the other people who share the same historic homeland. I, as an Israeli, cannot expect. real lasting security and safety and flourishing in the land of Israel if Palestinians living in the historic land of Palestine do not have the opportunity for those same rights. since then I have been working, at the Geneva Initiative to, create the human infrastructure that we need. To finally move us, towards that moment where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side, in peace and security. The most practical, pragmatic way that I see of doing that, and I'm sure we'll get into it, very soon, is a two state solution. An Israeli state side by side with a Palestinian state. And just a word about why now, that Lisa started with, it's an incredibly difficult time to talk about peace. How do you talk about peace when you're in the midst of the worst war certainly of my lifetime? the human toll, the catastrophic situation, that we see on the ground in Gaza, is such that many people, particularly on the Palestinian side, but of course, from the Israeli side, people talking about their experiences, their losses from October 7th, is such that many people, are not prepared to speak. They're not, they don't want dialogue right now. they might be willing to speak to me. I'm speaking about Israelis. Israelis might be willing to speak to another Israeli about solutions, about a political process. and even then, there's a lot of, hostility and fear. but to speak to someone from the other side, to speak to an enemy, is something unthinkable for many people. And we're hearing that from international, allies to one side or the other as well. my response to that would be, now is the time to speak about peace. You don't speak about. Peace and work towards peace when there is peace, you speak about peace and work on it in the depth of war, when the need has never been greater, yes, there are incredible obstacles to coming together, there are incredible obstacles to running productive, constructive dialogue, today, our job is to overcome those obstacles, which Despite everything we continue to manage to do.

2

Thank you all so much. I wonder if you can help our audience today understand some of the work that you're doing to promote a two state solution, when there are other options on the table that maybe people aren't aware of. there's a one state run by Palestinians. There's a one state solution run by Israel, and then occupied territories. And then there's ideas about a confederation or an overlapping state. Why do you advocate for a two state solution, given other possibilities

7

The two state solution is doable. it has, borders, and it has the support of the international community. And also, as a Palestinian, the Two State Solution is the platform of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the legitimate and the only representative of the Palestinian people. That's what the PLO stands for. Had decided that a two state solution is a political settlement with Israel. Therefore, I support, the two state, solution. Yes.

9

Yeah. when we talk about, the two state solution, the truth, we mean, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders side by side with Israel. We mean the recognition from the side of the international community and the obligated recognition also from the side of Israel, since there is an already existing state between the river and the sea. And the still missing state is Palestine. When it comes to the other scenarios, I myself, I don't see the other scenarios as solutions, but rather, as options. And it depends if we would voluntarily or compulsory end up with such, alternatives. And before I tackle the two state solution, I would rather go through the other two scenarios. We have the existing reality scenario. We Palestinians in the West Bank, we are living in, a format of almost a one state where the Israeli settlers have the upper hand on the Palestinians. where the Israeli settlers do have the access and the control over the infrastructure as well as the different natural resources, while the Palestinians gradually and with time are ending up to be living in a closed Bonto stance. A situation which for me I'm strongly against, I will not accept, and I will continue working in order to change such a reality. When it comes to the issue of, a democratic one state, this is an issue which we Palestinians do not see doable. And here is the difference actually. between the way we see it, the ones who are working on the field, and probably certain other voices who have the desirability, which we do respect, to have a democratic a one democratic liberal state with equal civil and political right. Doable wise, for me as a Palestinian, I don't see it doable. And as such, I'm returning back to the two state solution. As a Palestinian, I'm also strongly interested to Realize my national aspirations of a state of my own. I want to be in a Palestinian state, national state, where I can enjoy the full privileges of the citizens of all other states in the world. I want to have my internationally recognized borders, my flag, my anthem. I want to be A member, a full member of the international community, Palestine now is recognized by the vast majority of the world countries, but the realization of the state is our responsibility and the responsibility of the international community too. Last but not least. we deal with the public, with the constituency, with the Palestinians, in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem, in the Gaza Strip, and based on the different public opinion polls and the different questionnaires and collecting answers back for the last couple of decades, we do not see any higher percentage of supports when we compare it to the two state solution. I can refer to the two state solution. to September 12th public opinion poll, which was conducted in Palestine by my organization, jointly with other polling office in Ramallah. And when we asked about three choices, The answer comes as follows. On the one state with equal rights, only 11 percent said yes, they want it. On a two state solution, ending up with a confederation, 19 percent said yes, we support it. On the two state solution, a Palestinian state on 1967 border, along with Israel, 51 percent of the interviewees supported it. Ultimately, and automatically, this means that 70 percent of the Palestinians do support, actually, the two state solution. Once again, there is a problem also, even with the remaining, 20%. It's only the fact that because of the different failures and the deficits of the Middle East peace process, they are confused on what would be the most proper and relevant solution for the, for this conflict. I believe. What we need is an only one day of success. And once we can reach an agreement where the Palestinian state will be established, all of the Palestinians will stand strongly behind this choice. And will stand strongly towards having a democratic state, a state which is part of the broader international community.

10

since Nidal threw out the, the numbers for, Palestinian public opinion regarding endgame to the conflict, I'll give the parallel, data on the Israeli side. This is from, a poll that we did through a professional polling company in August 2024. We put a lot of different options on the table, two state solution won a plurality of support at around 37 percent, a one state solution with less rights for Palestinians, essentially apartheid, but we didn't put that word in because that would bias the results, got between 20 to 25 percent. a one state solution with equal rights for all got 6. 6%, so lower than on the Palestinian side, not significantly lower than on the Palestinian side, but I do think it's worth highlighting that discourse, that conversation about, a, liberal, democratic, bi national state in Israel Palestine. is a conversation that's mostly happening abroad. You just don't have, real grassroots public support for it on the ground among either Israelis or Palestinians. And that is worth keeping in mind, when we talk about productive, pragmatic solutions and paths forward from where we are today. that 37 percent on the one hand is quite worrying because I don't have, a majority in Israeli society today that says, We are willing to make the compromises that we need to make in order to move forward with, the Palestinians towards statehood. on the other hand, 37 percent is also shockingly high. If I asked a room of Israelis right now, how many, what percentage, of Israelis do you think support a two state solution? 5%. 11%. I can tell you one thing about the peace camp is we're very good at thinking that we're the minority, even when we're not. so you actually have close to 40 percent still, despite all of the trauma, and Israeli society is living with a lot of trauma right now. despite the fear and the hatred, saying, when I step back and think about endgames to the conflict, what makes the most sense, really, is still a two state solution. For me, it's very simple, and this is what we present to our participants constantly. You have two peoples in this land, between the river and the sea, and both peoples have national aspirations and a right to self determination. At that point, either you can go for a binational state, or you can go for two states. Binational state has close to no popular support, and as said earlier today, so what, you want me to serve in your army? what would that look like pragmatically, on the ground when you put that together? I have no actual clear idea, clear path towards That version of reality, what I can see very clearly, are one of two paths. One is a two state solution, incredibly painful compromises made by both sides, but finally, we come to a scenario where neither side is killing each other and we have basic rights and dignity, or We continue this conflict, we deepen this conflict, right? Each side continues to claim, maximalist goals, it's ours completely. And the next October 7th, I'm speaking from the Israeli perspective, is not just around the corner, but it's even worse than what we have already seen. and that is what we are trying to bring to Israeli society, that awareness of now we are at a crossroads. It's a hard argument to make when you're still in the middle of a war, but we do see, and I think it's worth now expanding the conversation to opportunities, moments that did not exist in the past, political shifts and cracks, that Can be leveraged for a picture of our region, a picture of the Middle East that we haven't been able to even dream of for the past 10 years.

2

All right. So earlier I showed a slide which showed this diagram of power being balanced and in dialogue and increasing trust and relationships. Is there a role for protest to support Palestinians to increase public awareness and to balance the power? What do you think the role of protest is? Is it just about dialogue or is protest necessary too?

7

Protest, like a protest, in the international arena, in particular in the United States and Europe, or protest, in, the Gaza Strip and, the West Bank.

6

Anywhere.

7

Protest, is something that is very important to raise your voice against, injustice. I remember, as young as, 15 years old, taking part in protest in a Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza against the military occupation and going forward when I was in high school, leading protest also against the military occupation. the Israeli, occupation and, remembering the Israeli army breaking, into our high school and beating up, the students, myself, and the teachers. So protest is, something that is important in order to raise your voice. That said, protest here in the United States, for example. Protests on campus in support of Palestine and Palestinians and against what's happening in Gaza is also very important. however, as a Palestinian from the occupied territories from Gaza, I would have liked the slogans, for example, in the protests to be different and to be asking for demands and requests that can be For example, it would have been very strong, for students on U. S. campuses to come out, with, demands and requests, for example, like ending the military occupation. demand from the U. S. administration to recognize the state of Palestine and the 1967 borders. those are demands that can be, done and can serve us, Palestinians in the occupied territories. For us in the occupied territories, Gaza and the West Bank, our main and number one request and demand is to remove the Israeli military checkpoints, to end the military occupation, to stop the Israeli, settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. to allow for us Palestinians to have land and geographical contiguity for us to have our own state, like Nidal, said. that's what we, expect in the occupied territories from the solidarity movement and from the protest.

9

Yeah. The truth, hardly you will find a Palestinian who didn't, who do not believe or who do not practice. The exercise of a protest, when it comes to the occupation and when it comes to refusing the reality, it's our mean and our, tool to amplify our voice in order to be healed, by the whole world and by Israel. protesting by the way is a non violent mean, non, non militarized way to express, a position. So it's extremely important and definitely it should continue to be, like this and in order to defend and mobilize a certain cause. And in our case, as Palestinians, we are, defending and mobilizing for our right to have freedom. A state of our own and to end occupation. Nowadays, it's being practiced even, there is this war, in Gaza. But in the West Bank, for instance, there are daily protests. my, my son is studying in a university at Birzeit University. And sometimes I find him returning back during the middle of the day. So I asked him why there's no education center. Today we are protesting this case because there is a rest of 10 students, for instance, or the students are unable to arrive at the campus. In, in, in response to that as a reaction, the ones who managed to arrive the campus, they don't study, but they go protest. Protests around the world for end of occupation, for peace, for justice, and for the realization of the international humanitarian law and for the universal declaration of human rights when it comes to the Palestinians and when it comes to the situation in the West Bank and in the Gaza and East Jerusalem is also, an nonviolent way, and I believe it serves the agenda of peace and it serves the agenda of the peace camp in both Palestine and Israel. As far as such a protest, do not go violent.

10

I have protested the Israeli government more times than I can count at this point, so I would be very hypocritical if I, stood up now and said that I think that protests are wrong. I do think that in any protest movement, strategy is critical. and thinking about framing is critical. I have at this point engaged in protests, which were very effective. Those are few and far between. And protests that essentially didn't accomplish anything. That's the majority. And, protests that actually were quite harmful. I'll give you an example. Sarah Netanyahu, who is the, wife of, our prime minister and a hated political quasi political figure within certain circles in Israel. One night in Tel Aviv, went to, get her hair done, and, it was leaked somehow that she was in this particular neighborhood in Tel Aviv, and within an hour, two hours, there were thousands, maybe a hundred thousand Israelis, outside of this barbershop screaming bloody murder at this woman. Not very effective. And if anything, quite harmful, I think, to the movement, because the movement, the protest movement looked like maniacs, right? we were screaming against this woman who technically is not an elected official, no matter how much political influence she has. the prime minister got a nice photo op with his wife afterwards, hugging her and saying, Thank God you're safe from these, crazy protesters. And in terms of what it did to the mainstream, the way they thought about the protest movement, the way they thought about us, the slogans that were captured on television being shouted, at the woman at the event, overall, that night, I would say, hurt us more than it helped us. And I think that whenever you go out to the streets, there, there is, there must be a very clearly defined goal, and then the means as well, what you are saying, who you are inviting in with you, who you are keeping out. And that can be a decision, you can say, I don't want this kind of person to be invited into this tent on this day. I would argue that it's always better to widen the tent as much as possible, but that can be a strategic decision that you make. and that said, just know what you're doing. be very strategic about it. because it's incredibly difficult to make protest effective. Sometimes it works and then it's incredible. It's rare, but it can be done. If you want to move beyond protest for the sake of, keeping, maybe even keeping yourself, feeling like you're doing something, at least, I for my own, sense of self and values have come out to make this statement, fine. I think that's also, that's important to build community and build a sense of solidarity, a feeling of I'm not alone, given the state of the world. but if you want it to work, then you need very careful strategy. And that goes down to the details of what are you saying, right? What are the slogans that are being shouted? Two, what are the demands? And is this clearly being communicated to the rest of the world? Does everyone understand why I am here right now? And I would argue that some of, the protests, certainly what we've been seeing, of some of it, back in Israel. The communication of values has not come through, as clearly as it should. And that's also, obviously, our media's responsibility. but when you go out, think about how am I being seen and is this accomplishing the goals that I want it to accomplish?

2

Thanks to each of you. We're going to open it up in a minute, so there'll be, microphones here. But one final question for each of you. You've come all this way to the United States and you're touring campuses. What do you want from us? What could we be doing? What should we be doing to make sure the status quo doesn't last and that there is real, just peace and coexistence?

7

Yes, of course. American university campuses are very important places to highlight the urgent need to end Israel Palestine conflict, and we've seen how the student movement in the United States was effective during the Vietnam War and how American university campuses exerted pressure on American, decision makers to make them stop the war in Vietnam and bring American soldiers back to the state. So for us, Palestinians from the occupied territory, we would love for American campuses, to continue, to highlight the urgent need to end the Israeli military occupation, and also to send a clear and a loud message to Washington, to the President, to Congress, to the Senate, that this occupation needs to end. Fifty seven years of military occupation. is unjust and it needs to end as soon as possible. No one deserves to live under a foreign military occupation. It robs you of your dignity and humanity. Help us Palestinians in the occupied territory. End Israel military occupation and realize the two state solution. Israel and Palestine live next to each other in peace and economic prosperity. Thank you.

9

Thank you. Lisa, besides to what I just have mentioned, we are on the verge actually of a new critical and crucial stage. In the status and situation of our region, Palestinians and Israelis, and within the broader context of the Middle East, with a new president coming to office, it's extremely important for us to see a strong public opinion among or within the campuses and within the broader American public and such public opinion to be echoed on the process of policymaking when it comes. to the American role within the context of suggesting Responsible, reasonable, and relevant plans for solving the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The deals of the century type of plans never been relevant and will not be relevant in the future. Nowadays, there is this risk of the annexation of the West Bank. And yesterday, the Israeli Minister of Finance, he said, Trump is back and 2025 will be the year of annexation. This means a Trump. can allow the annexation, and Trump can prevent the annexation, because this guy, by his own, cannot make it unless he will get the green line from the United States. We want to prevent, actually, such a green line, and we want to prevent the annexation, and we want to maintain the ambient conditions for solving the Palestinian Israeli conflict based on the two states. For any time in the future.

10

I think, it's very natural for people to feel, more empathy, more identification with one side or the other. You're pro Israel or you're pro Palestine, and that's Either due to actually having roots in the region, cultural, natural, sometimes family, friends. Sometimes it's ideological, right? When you hear the narratives of the conflict, you identify one side as, much more just than the other side. sometimes it's, a familiarity, a resonance between whatever the most important pressing political issue is within your own country and what unfolding, in our own region. And whatever the reason is, I think it would be unreasonable, to expect people to let go of that and to say, no, I'm not pro Israel, I'm not pro Palestine. I'm, equally pro both in some way. And it would be very hypocritical as well, because I think every, everybody sitting on this stage, has, the interests of one side, in particular at heart. And that's why we're here. Not out of altruism, but. for our own people and for our own people's future, ultimately. that said, I think what is so missing when I look around the world, today, and when I hear echoes of our conflict narratives thrown back at us, are allies who will say, yes, I'm pro Palestinian, or yes, I'm pro Israel, and I'm also pro solution. I also want to talk about where do we go from here? I'm never going to agree with the other side about what happened in 1948, and actually I'm never going to agree with the other side about what's happening today, completely, right? we can talk, we can come to some level of understanding, but at the end of the day, the, whether it's because of the way the news portrays it, or the way the basic narratives and values have been inculcated, I am never fully going to agree with the other side. But, there must be voices from around the world that are encouraging us, that are showing us the way forward, towards, A shared idea of the future. And that's the vast majority of the work we do is we bring Israelis and Palestinians together and we say, we're going to talk about the past. We're not going to ignore it. And we're not going to agree, probably. But at the end of the conversation, it can't end there. It cannot end with, here are our differences and here are our issues. And here are the things we will never overcome. It must then move to, and now what? Because without that conversation, All we're doing is perpetuating the conflict, and I don't think there's any single person in this room who would say that is what they want.

6

Alright, so

2

let's now open it up and have questions from the audience. There should be two microphones. There's one over here. can you come back down actually? Cause the hands are back down here. Sorry. in the middle, in the black and then, in the blue, so you'll be second and then two, three, four.

3

Hi. thank you again for everything. my question is, about, territory in the two state solution. the 67 borders, Gaza Strip. Assuming something will remain of Gaza Strip, and West Bank, how it's going to communicate, and Jerusalem, how it's going to go inside this, very positive, solution that you're suggesting. Thank you.

9

The territorial aspect is extremely important. And when we talk about the two state solution, mainly meaning a Palestinian state, we mean the territories of the West Bank, which is Dotted, as shown in the map, we mean the Gaza Strip, and we mean East Jerusalem, which is, the red, dot, the large red dot, and here, the Gaza Strip. It's, inside, the Palestinian territories. So the land which is occupied in 1967 is the land which is supposed to be the future space of the emerging Palestinian state. But based on the different round of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, there are some differences. certain issues and certain components which we need to take into account. First of all, the connectivity and connecting the Gaza Strip with the West Bank. a safe passage have been integrated to connect the nearest point between the West Bank with the nearest point with the Gaza Strip. This is What we call or try to describe as the safe passage, a passage where the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank can use easily, smoothly, and freely to move between the two sides. In addition, probably such a connection can also serve as a place for any other infrastructure which can be needed. The second component or the second issue is the settlements. We all know that we have, certain settlement blocks or, settlements which are close adjacent to the border line and other settlements. which affects substantially the geographic contiguity of the future Palestinian state. All settlements that affect the future contiguity of the future Palestinian state will be evacuated. When it comes to certain settlements which are adjacent, whether in Jerusalem or adjacent to the borderline, there are certain proposals to deal with them within the principle of the land swap. The principle of the land swap. which was integrated into the literature of the Palestinian Israeli negotiations in 2001, became part of the official Palestinian position. So far, we have certain marked settlements which can be part of the land swap. Meanwhile, we know on the map which are the areas, more or less, to be given to the Palestinian side. In this regard, I believe, probably not all of you are aware about this territorial aspect, but a percentage between 2. 5 to 3. 8, as an area to be swapped between the two sides, gonna fulfill the dire need on the ground while maintaining the geographic contiguity and overcoming the issue of certain set Israeli settlements.

10

And maybe I'll just add on that because I know that settlements are considered a main point against the potential viability of a two state solution. If you look at a map today of the West Bank, with the locations of all of the settlements and outposts highlighted, Abu Mazen, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the, Palestinian Authority, famously said, it's Swiss cheese. they're everywhere. There's holes in the West Bank and it's a real threat to Palestinian contiguity. but what Nidal is talking about with that, between 2. 5 to 3. 5%. is the fact that 80 percent of Israeli settlers today are living alongside the Green Line still. So all of those different points, all of those outposts and settlements deep within, they have much smaller populations than the major blocks that are still right along the line. and the settlement movement, despite trying quite hard over the last few decades, has not managed to significantly shift the bulk of its population deep within the West Bank. you're obviously going to have, a political issue when you talk about, evacuations on the Israeli side, and whatever prime minister finally gains the courage to do will pay a significant political price. But that said, in terms of the viability of it, of the actual bulk of human beings, who you have to evacuate, We are talking about well under 50%, because most, the vast majority of Israeli settlers living within the West Bank today are living right along the Green Line. And if you have the territorial swap that Nidal mentioned, you don't actually have to move them from their home.

6

Let's take another question. Actually, let's go on this side and then we'll come back to you. So if you can.

12

Hi, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm a Palestinian refugee from Jaffa, which is occupied Tel Aviv right now. And I'm wondering how the right of return would look like for the Palestinians in Diaspora and who were expelled in 1948. And I'm wondering how you think the Palestinian leadership would look like without colonial interference.

7

Yes. So I'm also the descendant of a Palestinian refugee. My mother is a Palestinian refugee of 1948. she comes out of the Abar Galil from the city of Safad. there is nothing us Palestinians would like to do than, for example, practice the right of return to all these villages and all these cities. But, as a student of political science and, peace building. I understand that, there is a difference between, total justice and, political settlement. And, us Palestinians, we are not individuals. We are people, and we have institutions. that represent us, including the Palestinian National Council and the PLO. And the PLO, for the sake of ending the state of war, for the state of resurrecting the Palestinian people and have a state under the sun for us Palestinians, In the military occupation, they made the painful, decision in 1990, three, to opt for a two state solution, Israel Palestine, based on the 1967 borders. And like Nadal said, with the mechanism of land swap, Palestinian refugees and any Palestinian around the world, once we have our state, the independent Palestinian state. All Palestinian refugees around the world are welcome to come back to the state of Palestine. They will be naturalized citizens within a couple days. They will become full fledged Palestinian citizens. and, again, we are, as Palestinian people, our main objective is to end the Israeli military occupation. In the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and to have a Palestinian state. Thank you.

6

Do you want to follow up? I see you shaking your head.

12

no, I'm not sure, how we can, agree on the Palestinian, group or like the Palestinian people in general. it would be very nice to have a two state solution, but we all know how Oslo ended up, how it ends up being for the Palestinians, at least.

6

Can you say a little bit about that?

12

So the Oslo Accords, when they happened, they were supposed to. First of all, grant the Palestinians, the right, like the whole point was to like, have a two state solution in one way or another. But then, what ends up happening is, all these gray areas no one knew about, the borders were not a hundred percent, agreed upon and the Palestinians end up being greatly disadvantaged, in that way. So I'm just a bit critical about how that process would look like at the moment. Thank you.

6

Anyone else want to respond?

9

Yeah, we tried to a bit highlight the territorial aspect, but we the ones who are working actually on the ground, on the territorial aspect, when it comes to the borders, definitely there is a way and there is a strong chance to draw a clear border line between the two states. But back to your first question and to connect it actually to the future solution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict when it comes to the issue of, the Palestinian refugees. By the way, you are an American citizen. Where you came from? Jordan. okay. then, this is easier for me actually. I'll relate you back to the official Palestinian position and the most common and popular position when it comes to the issue of refugees. First of all, The issue of refugees, is being dealt with at two levels. Level one is the return, and level two is the compensation. And every Palestinian refugees, according, to the different rounds of negotiations, which we had in the past and which we anticipate to have, every Palestinian should enjoy both rights, the right to return and the right to compensation. When it comes to the right to, the right to return. There are also, the right itself, and there is the implementation. And within this, there is a set of choices which have been developed, actually, by the Palestinians, to some extent acknowledged by the international community. And the right of the return includes the following. First of all, the unrestricted right of Palestinians to return to the future Palestinian state. Any Palestinian can return, whether he's in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the United States, Venezuela, or wherever. So the right of return to the Palestinian state is 100 percent guaranteed. If there is Palestinians who prefer to stay in the host countries and there are, according to the definition of the UNRWA, which is unfortunately in a hard situation because of the policies of the government of Israel and the fact that Israel is trying to cancel the agreement with the United Nations for allowing the UNRWA to work, there are three countries which are considered host countries. Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. And then it's up also to the Palestinians who are living in those countries, if any of them will choose to stay in the host countries. According also or referring to the broader context of negotiations, there are two other choices. The return to the homes, not homes because there are not anymore homes, but to their original places. And, choosing a third country as a final destination of residence and citizenship and nationality. And this issue, Israel should accept an average number of the numbers accepted by other countries. We are talking about, it's hard always to talk about the refugees in Jordan because the refugees in Jordan even a bit sensitive, since they are enjoying a full political and civil rights in Jordan, but a bit, better when we talk about the refugees in Syria and Lebanon, we have a better track as Palestinians to how many Palestinians we have in Syria and in Lebanon, at least actually until 10 years before the Arab Spring. Within this package, we believe we can allow, in a way or another, a fair, formula where the Palestinian refugees can choose between the right of return and compensation, combined both together.

10

And I just want to say a word about, Oslo, because it's frequently cited, actually by both Israelis and Palestinians as evidence that, a two state solution can't work because look at the failure of Oslo. And I think it's really important to remember that Oslo was not a peace agreement. It was not a final status agreement. Oslo was an interim agreement. It was, a, series of decisions made agreements come to by both sides that were supposed to end after five years. in a final status agreement on all of the core issues of the conflict. But what essentially ended up happening was they agreed on these interim measures and they never set the end game goals. So they said, things like refugees, we'll decide later. Borders, we'll decide later. Jerusalem, we'll decide later. So instead of taking Oslo as evidence that a two state solution peace agreement would never work, I think what we need to take from it are Lessons about how a two state peace agreement should work, right? That you need to, from the beginning, state clearly this is our end goal and we are going to start talking from the very first day about the core issues that, up until now, have essentially fueled this incredibly bloody conflict and come to agreements on where we want to be five years down the line and not just say five years down the line, we'll start talking about it and figure all of it out in a few months because clearly, that did not work.

6

Thank you all. Let's go to the next question.

13

this past spring, American universities saw a wave of protests, but they're mostly focused on the boycott, divest, and sanction movement, which you didn't mention in your list of different things that you want Americans, or the world, to be protesting about. so I'm curious for what your take is on both the effectiveness of the boycott, divest, and sanction movement, if that's something that we here on the U. S. side should keep advocating for, or if there's, you prefer, Other more effective ways protest and campaign.

2

Who wants to talk about BDS?

7

Go ahead. listen, Bicotting and BDS and et cetera is something that is non violent. And of course, We would like in the occupied, and this is our message from the occupied territories. Buy, cut, and divest any products that comes from the occupied territories. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Anything that is made in illegal Israeli settlements inside the occupied territories, buy, cut it. Divest from it. That said, when it comes to the state of Israel, okay, inside the state of Israel, okay, I'm not calling for a divest from anything that is done inside Israel or boycott Israel, because inside Israel, our problem as Palestinians are not with the Jewish people or the Israeli people in general. Our problem with the extremists inside Israel, our problem, Palestinians and Israelis are not between the Palestinian people in general and the Israeli Jewish people in general. The problem is between extremists in both sides, and those extremists feed on each other's actions and reactions. And us, the silent majority inside Israel and Palestine, we are victims of those extremists. Thank you.

6

Anyone else want to talk about the video?

9

I endorse what, what Az just has said. It's extremely important, to boycott whatever is relevant to the occupation and its tools in the occupied Palestinian territories in 1967. And all the practices, actually, that Aim towards bringing, a final settlement closer through using sticks or carrots. I believe this is extremely important. We are facing this problem, in Palestine specifically when it comes to the fact that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are also an economic venture. It's a very beneficial economic venture Which finds its final destination and markets in the Europe and in the United States. the most importantly is to divest it and to, Boycott it, and this is the best service you can make to the base and to the chances of realizing the two state solution.

10

I just, a very quick clarification, because as said, any Israeli products from settlements in the West Bank or Gaza, there are not yet Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. In

9

the West

10

Bank only. Only in the West Bank for now.

14

Let's go to the back

2

there for the next question.

14

hi, my name is Francesca. I'm a PhD student in peace studies and history, and I also have a master's degree in Holocaust and genocide studies. I, would appreciate reflection on three different either terms or historical happenings. so the first is, the end of apartheid in South Africa. you seem to think that's not a space for inspiration or a model. So I'm wondering if you can reflect on that. And then the other two, are the terms and realities of genocide and settler colonialism. Thanks.

6

Okay, thank you.

7

I will reflect on the issue of apartheid. Our problems in the occupied territories is not apartheid and is not equal treatment between Jews and Arabs. This is not our struggle in the occupied territory, meaning Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We are not fight, our fight is not for equality between us and the Jewish people. Our fight, our struggle is for liberation. We want to be separated from Israel. We want to have our own state, our borders, our national anthem, our flag. We want to leave Christians and Arab Muslims in a Palestinian state. South Africa model, you cannot drop South Africa model just the way it is over Israel and Palestine. South Africa model belong in South Africa. Our struggle is different. Our struggle for independence. We want a Palestinian state. We don't want to be equal with Israelis. Israelis can stay in Israel. We want to stay in Palestine, have our own state.

2

And what about Palestinian citizens of Israel?

7

Palestinian citizens of Israel, that's their struggle. They need to fight for equality. Two million Palestinians inside Israel, they need to fight for equality inside Israel and for full integration inside the Israeli societies. They have rights, but at the same time they have obligations, and they need to be citizens of the state of Israel. We are calling for two states, Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians inside Israel are full citizens of Israel. They vote in the elections. Out of 120 seats in the Knesset, they scored 17 seats in the Knesset. So it's their fight for quality, it's their fight to be integrated in the political system, and also it's their obligation, as two million Palestinians inside Israel, to help us in the occupied territories from inside the Israeli parliament. Thank you. Mizrahi Jews, for us Palestinians and Arabs, Mizrahi Jews are Arab Jews. They lived among the Arabs for hundreds of years. We expect from the Mizrahi Jews to be supportive of us, Palestinian Arabs. Mizrahi Jews, they understand the Arabs. We understand them. They lived among us and we expect from them to support our struggle for independence. That's what we expect from the Mizrahi Jews.

6

Apartheid. Is it relevant?

9

He answered apartheid. Yeah, I'm just

2

asking if you want to add anything to

9

it. I know, maybe I'll say a couple of words on genocide because she mentioned also the genocide, no? Answering colonial. last May there were a ruling by the International Criminal Court, the ICC. I myself, I very much into the Sorry, yeah, International Court of Justice. Now, there are two, two tracks, the ICJ, which issued the advisory opinion on the legality of the occupation. And there was also the ICC. The two, there are two tracks. Yeah. the court which, considered the issue of. Genocide is ICJ.

10

No, the ICC is, Gallatin, Netanyahu, and Simulanov. It's, the arrest warrants, and the ICJ did both.

14

The ICJ has not done No, but it's Tehila, do you want to speak to that? And also just to throw out there that, every Genocide Studies scholar pretty much at this point agrees that it's genocide, including Genocide Studies scholars at Notre Dame.

9

Never mind. Let me tell you something. there were this set of measures which have been published by the court. Among them, is the main responsibility of Israel vis a vis the Palestinians and the Palestinians have been defined as a group which is eligible within the broader context of the Severe unity and jurisdiction of the court and the applicability of the issue of genocide. This is one. Second, the court ordered Israel to ban from the forced displacement of Palestinians, to allow humanitarian aid to Palestinians, and not to incite for genocide. this is, the four or five points which have been published. it's extremely important actually for Israel to comply by all these measures, but most importantly for the international community, actually, by the way, there were, 15 judges, 15 judges. who took part in this, hearing. Among them, there were a judge who represented Israel, and on three of the five points which were issued, even the Israeli judge did not oppose. There are other judges who oppose, but they were, the decision have been taken by a majority of votes. So it's extremely important to allow the court to continue the work and to make the final ruling when it comes to the situation in the Gaza Strip. And the final ruling must be respected by the rest of the world, must be Also, taken seriously and implemented when it comes to, the UN and the UN Security Council, as well as when it comes to the United States.

7

We are not collateral damage. Palestinians. We lost around 46, 000 in this war in the Gaza Strip. I personally lost 80, 80 of my extended family, the Masri family. I'm not talking about gunmen. I'm talking about civilians, women with their babies, grandfathers and grandmothers. Israel killed approximately around 45, 000 in Gaza. Not all of them are Hamas or Jihad al Islami. More than half of them are civilians. And who committed the crime of killing civilians will face persecution and the need to face the consequences. Period. I'm not here to defend anybody.

6

Thank you.

2

We'll go to a question here and then two down here, just so it's going to take a while.

first, thank you very much, Professor Scherr, for holding this excellent event. my question is, in order to end the occupation, you would need security in these areas, and given the devastation, security is hard to be found. And so I've seen a variety of different ideas put forward. about how to secure the area, perhaps in the short term, perhaps even longer, that would include other states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, other Arab or Muslim states coming in, Egypt, who knows, to secure the area. But you had mentioned that you wouldn't want a foreign occupier. And I wonder, these are not, Democratic states, they might impose a gender apartheid on the region. Would that be acceptable to the Palestinian people to have a state which didn't offer rights and freedoms and justice, but instead was similar to these other states where people are denied those things? Would that be an acceptable Palestinian state?

7

Of course, when we talk about the future Palestinian state, we want to have a plural Palestinian state. We want to have a democratic Palestinian state. We want to have a Palestinian state with an institution. That said, today, us Palestinians, we need help. In particular, in the Gaza Strip. the Gaza Strip was ruled by Hamas for over 17 years, following a bloody military coup against the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. In the Gaza Strip, we lived 17 years under Hamas rule, with the persecutions and with people being arrested and etc. So now, with Hamas regime in Gaza is vanishing little by little. And, what we need help from our brothers in the Arab countries, in particular from Egypt, from Jordan, from United Arab Emirates, and from Saudi Arabia. The combination of these, countries, and their help is essential for us, especially when it comes to security. and training the Palestinian Authority security personnel, hopefully in Egypt, and Egypt facilitating their entrance into the Gaza Strip through Rafah crossing. Now, I would never, endorse a regime in Palestine that persecute the Palestinian citizens or a regime that is not democratic. Currently at this stage in our, struggle for a Palestinian state and for independence, we need the help of the Egyptians. We need the help of the Emiratis. And, what is, most important is for the efforts of these Arab countries to be coordinated with the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. Once the PLO and the Palestinian Authority sanction these countries and they will work with them, okay, then we will not consider this a foreign military occupation. The foreign military occupation is the Israeli occupation. The Arabs gonna come to help us. Yes.

6

Anything you want to say? Yeah.

9

Over the last few decades, actually, even with the issue of Palestine emerging, there used to be always this partnership and support from the side of the Arab countries. The fact that, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan will help and provide the Palestinians with a consultancy, with a certain technical support or financial support, but always they are also providing us with a political backing. This won't mean automatically that those countries will rule in Palestine. We Palestinians, we always say that we do not intervene in the internal affairs of any country. So for us, it's not our issue whether such states are democratic or non democratic. The most important for us as Palestinians to have the state, which we dream to have a state, which is. Democratic, where power can be exchanged through elections. A state that can respond to the needs, to the desires, and to the rights of all citizens equally. This is what we want, and definitely we should not be affected actually by any practices. Of any field or state, if any.

10

The question was what Palestinians would be willing to accept. So I'm actually not going to. I'm not going to hear

15

you. I think that would be a simple, the Israeli side that have this coalition of outer states. I

10

think it's Israel's dream, right? I think, right now for most Israelis, when you ask them, what's their greatest threat? it's not Hamas, it's not even Hezbollah, for generations now, been Iran, right? That's the great threat in the region, from the Israeli perspective. way to, to have any kind of deterrence against that credible deterrence is through, a strong regional bloc that, is coordinating together, cooperating, to protect, everybody's security. And you cannot achieve that until you have fixed the Israeli Palestinian conflict. so until, the Saudis have said over and over again since the start of this war. We want normalization with you. We're willing to move forward. We need a Palestinian state. We need some kind of pathway towards a Palestinian state. And given the composition of this government, it's something that Netanyahu, despite the fact that is his foreign policy legacy, that's the crowning achievement of his lifetime. If he can't achieve it, he can't commit to it. He can't even pay lip service to it because he is so dependent on his extreme right wing allies in government who have said, we're No Palestinian, not even lip service. We're not willing to even contemplate the idea of this. I just want to say a word, in response to, the various terms that were, thrown out. my feeling coming here, and having now, spent a week, a little over a week, on various college campuses is that, the terminology litmus test is incredibly important here in a way that it is not back home. We were at a, conference in D. C. I was on a panel with, several, Palestinians, including a Palestinian peacebuilder who has spent every single day, of her life since The war broke out trying to achieve a ceasefire and trying to work behind the scenes with Israelis to move us closer to, an end, of this horrific conflict, and an American woman in the audience, who has no direct roots in the region, but who cares passionately about, Palestinians and about Palestinian life, essentially took her aside after the panel and berated her for not using the word genocide, for not using this terminology or that terminology. and the woman, the Palestinian woman turned to her and said, stop telling me how to make peace. and that, I think, there, there's, there are reasons, there are strategies, there are choices for the words that we use. Sometimes it's ideological. Sometimes it's about, Being able to reach our own audiences, and from what I've seen here, there's a certain level of ideological purity that, certain groups are not willing to compromise on, and that stops, some people who are actually on the ground trying to build peace and trying to build bridges, stops them from doing their work or prevents their work from being as effective as possible. so I would urge you, as you're thinking about what is important to push here, To consider putting words aside and think, put in the center actions, because that is from my perspective, actions are much more important than the terminology that we're using. Salam

6

alaykum

16

again. Thank you guys for coming. so I have a question and then I want to challenge your thoughts and my opinion as well, because I share somewhat of a similar In the sense of, when you split up, when you create this two state solution with the 1977, 1967 borders, Jerusalem is in that respect for the Palestinians. And now we understand the Israeli project to start as a Jew, as a goal for Jewish people to arrive at their homeland with Jerusalem being the gold pot, Jerusalem is the most holy site, for Jews and Muslims, but yet Israelis would have to compromise that holy land, that Jerusalem. So do you see that as Not, a contra contradiction to the, or origin of the Israeli project. And then if so, are Israelis willing to compromise at that? if that's the root of the Israeli project.

10

Great. some Israelis are not willing to compromise. and for them it's land above all else, including life. We know who those groups are, and we know that they've gained strength, particularly political strength, over the past years. We also know that they're a minority. we know that demographically, we know that from public opinion polling. when you can put a viable peace agreement on the table, and present it to Israeli society and say, here are the Palestinian partners for peace on the other side, when you can make that case, we can make that case. then you will have a moderate majority, a pragmatic majority in Israeli society that is ready to sign. It's happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. You're then going to have spoilers coming up from within Israeli society that do, that the, the sanctity of land is of, such paramount importance to them that they are willing to go very far, including violence, in order to prevent any kind of, compromise on the territory. They have been, overruled in the past, for example, from the disengagement, from Gaza in 2005, from the disengagement from Sinai in order to make a peace agreement with Egypt. And what we know is that every time that, Israel goes through a bilateral peace process with a partner on the, other side, whether it's, Egypt or, or, the Palestinians in Oslo to some extent, then you have, an agreement that lasts, Oslo arguably has lasted way too long, and every time Israel goes through a unilateral process where Israel decides without consulting, without negotiating, without trying to give, power to the moderates on the other side, then that has actually led to more violence. So one of the claims we hear in Israeli society is, look, we disengaged from Gaza and then we got rockets. And obviously there's a Palestinian response to that about why that has happened. But what we say as Israelis speaking to Israelis is that wasn't a peace process, right? You didn't do that out of the goodness of your hearts. That was out of security considerations because Israelis were dying every single day in the Gaza Strip at one point. Therefore, there was a choice made at the governmental level. Not to sit down at the negotiating table, and that has a cost. Hamas was seen as the diplomatic winner, of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. anytime you can have an actual bilateral process, where you can raise support within Palestinian society from the Palestinian actors at the negotiating table, because look, finally they're delivering on our dream. and you will also raise support from the pragmatic, Israeli voices, which is still the mainstream majority. They just have to be able to visualize it. And because of our circumstances right now, both the war and, I would say just as importantly, the kind of leadership that we are saddled with, it's incredibly hard to do

9

By the way, just to elaborate a bit on Jerusalem, the issue is extremely important. Jerusalem consists of East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. And East Jerusalem is the territory which was occupied in 1967, and then the Israeli government annexed East Jerusalem and subjected it to the Israeli, sovereignty. Nowadays, even when we look at the city, despite the different, demographic and geopolitical, complications, which have been created since 1967 until today, the city is divided. still is Jerusalem with a vast majority of Arabs and Palestinians and the West Jerusalem, with purely Israeli. The solution for Jerusalem to serve as Two capitals for two states is possible, doable, and can be implemented actually on, on the ground. we mentioned the Geneva Initiative and within the context of Geneva Initiative, we presented a formula for solving the issue of Jerusalem. any practice, Jerusalem. can be divided, can be a shared capital, can be also as a third option as an open city, meanwhile to serve as a capital for both states. the world area, and the one kilometer of the religious places, there is also a practical and relevant formula to divide, but also to ensure the safe and secure access to the followers of the three religions. Each to its chosen place.

5

Yes.

2

All right. We have one more question down here and then one right behind it and then one on the side.

8

As salamu alaykum. thank you for being here and for this great talk. So you guys, the Palestinian side have seemed to come representing the PLO and the PLA. I'm curious about the other Palestinian organizations, that represent other groups in Palestine and what your stance is on how they can be integrated into this conversation and how their perspective should be taken in, especially because I feel that many, Palestinians do support Hamas as a legitimate, group. organization and one that has resulted in severe consequences, but in a way also elevated the issue to the global stage that it currently has now. So what's your response to that?

9

thank you. the PLO is the agency actually, when it comes to the Palestinian political representation. Definitely, we are firmly believe in inclusion and including all different Palestinian political parties within this agency. you mentioned Hamas. The only obstacle for Hamas not to be part of is, the ideological platform of Hamas. We do not fit with the charter of the PLO. Over the last 20 years, there were several attempts actually to bridge the gaps between the two sides. And for Hamas, to give up on certain components of its own charter and to tune itself within the PLO charter. this is the only way for Hamas to be, integrated within the PLO. There are, several also rounds of internal Palestinian, talks towards realizing and end to the Palestinian split. And this is also supposed to lead to a certain formula. Where all the different spectrums of the Palestinian people will be represented. The PLO Charter is very clear. The PLO Charter presents the Palestinians as a part of the broader international community. It enjoys the recognition of the whole world as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and the PLO follows and adopts the non violence and the peace towards realizing the goals. So this is what is needed for the rest of the Palestinian groups to be integrated and included in this PLO agency.

2

All right. Thanks. We have a couple more questions and not much time left. So let's take, this question. And then one over on this side at the same time. Can you ask your question and then we'll take this one?

17

yes. thank you all for coming. I really appreciate it. I just had a question. so going off that, I was going to ask, how would the PLO integrate a group like Hamas, especially given, I'm sure they don't speak ideologically for all the Palestinian people, but they have explicitly rejected Israeli statehood, and they Have said several of your leaders, including Khaled, Mishal, have said that they won't stop until everything from the river to the sea is free. So how do you integrate that sort of group with the broader move towards peace or truce?

7

So when we talk about the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, it's a coalition of almost 13 Palestinian factions. And as Nidal said, the PLO is the sole and the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Now, organizations like Hamas, is a ban Islamic organizations. Not necessarily, only focus on Palestine and Palestinians and building a Palestinian state. we in the PLO, we would like Hamas to become a pure Palestinian organizations, and it's only concern is Palestinians and the well being of the Palestinian people. Hamas needs to get in line with the PLO political position, on Israel. And, the final settlement with Israel. Hamas alone as a political party or movement cannot stand in opposition to 13 political parties and factions. Those are the PLO, including Fatah, the biggest Palestinian, organization. In the PLO, We would welcome Hamas to join. We would welcome Jihad al Islami to join the PLO. However, they have to adhere to the character, to the charter of the PLO and their political vision of ending Israel Palestine.

6

Thank you. We'll have two more final questions, one here and then here, and then we'll

18

Thank you very much for this very insightful panel. so along the same lines, I wanted to ask, what do you plan to do in this ideal state solution? With, groups that simply won't recognize Israel and countries in the region that simply won't recognize Israel as well. you mentioned two of them. There are splinter groups in the West Bank, and I can count at least five. In the core Arab states of the Middle East that haven't recognized Israel. And then in North Africa, elsewhere. And can you give us a kind of a count of how many are there? How many Hamas people are there? How many Islamic jihadis are there in terms of actual numbers? Thank you very much.

7

Yeah. in the end it's us Palestinians. That need to decide kind of country and what kind of state we want. And we refuse any country, Arab or Muslim country or any country around the world, to say we accept this or we don't accept this or we would like you to do this. This is none of their business. Starting with Iran. As Palestinians, we decide what kind of state we want. And for now, the PLO decided that we want a Palestinian independent state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. That's what we want. And for Hamas, Yes, Hamas is a big organization. Hamas is, maybe the second organization among, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the Diaspora. Hamas is not a small organization. And Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a bigger organization that was established in Egypt back in the 1920s. So and Jihad Islami is on the payroll from Tehran. They get paychecks every month from Tehran, okay? So when they become purely Palestinians, they will join the PLO. Same thing goes to Hamas. Yes, thank you.

9

let me just add one thing, sorry. I'm coming from Ramallah and I'm very close, to the political conversation, including also, the truth. I'm aware about the political conversation with Hamas, which has taken place over the last couple of weeks, including last week in, Cairo and the fact that Hamas endorsed the administrative committee, which will be in charge for Gaza. Hamas said, we endorse it. It'll be led by the PLO, by the pa. we are fine with it and we will, this is because Hamas know how severe the damage which have been created in the Gaza Strip, and they know that they won't be able to deal with it. They don't have nowadays, neither the tools nor the support. or even the presence on the ground. But when it comes also to the political solution, over the last few years, Hamas never said that they don't want the two state solution. Those guys, they said that the other side don't want it. And even, in a couple of statements made by Khaled Meshal, he said that he will be fine with the Palestinian state on the 1967 border without any reference. To whoever will be beyond. this is initially and, for that being said and not to appear as defending Hamas, I want to say based on the different media reports and the different, even direct conversations with some friends who are journalists and talk to Hamas people. In Doha, Hamas people in Doha, they are not happy with the situation in Gaza. They are not happy with the whole thing which happened in the Gaza Strip. And nowadays they are also looking for a savior and for a window of opportunity to get out of this situation. And they firmly believe that the only one who can make it is, President Abbas, although he is the weakest, they believe that he is the savior nowadays. He's the guy, but he doesn't want. Nowadays, he doesn't want. For him, he is interested also to see Trump in office and to see what are the new policies to be taken by Trump. And for him, he needs a strong regional and international endorsement when it comes of him returning back to the Gaza Strip. But the problem nowadays is not on the side of Hamas. What is just, had said also, unfortunately, There are two, two people or two countries nowadays in the Middle East who are against the two state solution. It's Iran and Netanyahu. They don't want it. Yeah, they don't want it.

10

I want to push back a little bit against that. It's true that specific Hamas officials on the record saying they would embrace, they would accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. They never said that they would accept a state of Israel along 1967 borders. And that's an important part of the equation, right? It's always seen as a 1967 state until we. get further, more of what we want. So on the Israeli side, Hamas certainly is not seen as a partner for peace. If that changes in the future, fantastic. it's going to be very hard to persuade Israelis that it has really changed, but, if you can have credible signs and steps, then great, they can be integrated into the PLO. what was the last thing you said, Nidal? Ah, about the opponents of a two state solution. Yes, and? I would say that, one, one of the, slogans circulating through Israeli society today is, A Palestinian state is a prize for Hamas, that this would, similar to the disengagement from Gaza, this would actually strengthen them, this would be something that showed them that, their attack on October 7th, had accomplished something great for the Palestinian cause. And what we say within Israeli society, what our organization is saying back, is that a two state solution, a real two state solution, with all of the core issues settled, end of all claims, is Hamas worst nightmare. Because they ultimately represent this maximalist vision of all or nothing, total Palestinian control. Maybe the Jews can remain, but with an inferior status within the land, within the country. and that's exactly what our extremists are saying and are trying to promote and accomplish. So what we're saying is, if you want to truly defeat Hamas, right? Militarily, we've done essentially as much as we possibly can, in my opinion. and the way forward at this point is you have to defeat the idea of Hamas. You have to, defeat them on a diplomatic playing field. And the way to do that is to show that, the pragmatists on the Palestinian side are right, that there is a possibility for compromise. That there is a future side by side with Israel, both living in peace and security. and that ultimately is the only way to truly delegitimize to truly fight, the extremist Maximalist vision. is to prove that there's an alternative.

6

All right. Let's have a final question. Last one.

11

I think it was just mentioned a moment ago, but, what is Iran's role in this whole situation? it's the elephant in the room, and I'm reminded because they mentioned the other Arab countries in the area, which are trying to help, but Iran seems to be very interested in maintaining this, Disorder. So could you help us understand as Americans, what's really going on there?

7

Iran until 1979, prior to, the, Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini, revolution, was a very good friend of, Israel. They were best friends. Iran, the Shah of Iran and Israel. But things changed in Iran, when the Ayatollah regime, came into effect. And their first thing was they wanted to export their model of Islamic revolutions to who? To the Arab countries around. And for example, I grew up in Gaza during the 70s and the 80s. Gaza was more progressive than the West Bank. however, once, Iran started funding, in Gaza, Jihad al Islami. things started to change in Gaza, becoming more conservative. And then when they start to fund Hamas, in the 80s things took, a sharp, turn toward Gaza being more conservative, and you could see that the, with the closure of the cinemas in Gaza and the theaters in Gaza and the woman becoming more wearing the hijab and the black dress instead of the Palestinian traditional, dress. So all these, changes happened and what complicated things more. Is Israel, Iran adopting Hamas and Jihad al Islami and sending them money and weapons through the Sinai desert, especially I'm talking about Gaza, and making Hamas and Jihad al Islami even stronger than the PLO and the Palestinian Authority? To the extent that Hamas staged its military coup against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO and drove both out of Gaza. So Iran empowers Hamas, empowers Jihad al Islami, and make them more powerful than the PLO and the Palestinian Authority combined. That's what Iran is doing. And, this for us in Gaza. proved to be disastrous, with Hamas thinking that now with the Iranian support, they can take out, Israel. And Yahya Sunwar, I believe when he decided to do that, the terrorist attack on Israel, he was really counting on, Iran's, support, somehow. And, apparently Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas, was assassinated in, in Iran by the Israelis. And now we see Iran and Israel exchanging rocket, fire between the two countries. And Iran is just, the regime is destabilizing, the Arab countries, starting from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, empowering the Shias. against the Sunnis. In Syria, they do that. In Lebanon, they did that. In Iraq, they did that. And in Yemen with the Houthis, installing the Houthis in Yemen. So the regime in Iran is destabilizing those Arab countries, one. And two, empowering the extremist, maximalist, radical elements within the Palestinian people. and that, is destructive for us, Palestinian moderate, who just want to have an end to occupation and to have a negotiated two state solution.

2

All right. Thank you all so much.