Two confessions on Palestine and Israel

The perpetually contested issue of Israel and Palestine was the central theme of an illuminating debate recently held at the University of Maastricht. Organized by Maastricht Debates and moderated by Wilfried Ruetten, director of the European Journalism Centre, the event allowed a glimpse into the hearts and minds of a Palestinian, Saman Khoury, and an Israeli, Avi Primor, who appeared as two very conscientious individuals seeking not to evangelize their respective causes but to find new hope through Europe’s next generation.

When contemplating a debate on the conflict between Israel and Palestine two assumptions usually come to mind: the first one is that the speeches will be inflammatory on both sides and the second is that at the end the audience will realize yet again that the conflict will never be truly resolved and that the debate was simply another grim reminder of that fact.

For the event entitled: “Israel and Palestine: two confessions”, the organizers of Maastricht Debates had invited two distinguished guest speakers: Avi Primor, the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, and Saman Khoury, the Deputy chairperson of the Palestinian Peace and Democracy Forum in East Jerusalem.

Since the two men represented opposite sides, one could have expected a terse exchange, with the Israeli speaker describing how his countrymen are being victimized by a violent terrorist network whose goal is to remove them from their “chosen land,” and the Palestinian view that Palestine is being consistently ignored by both the Israelis and the West while undergoing brutal persecution at Israeli hands..

“Confess your sins”
But such a confrontation, which “simply reiterates deadlocked positions”, was precisely what the organizers of the debate wished to avoid. Instead the speakers were asked to “make a critical assessment of their own side”. Referring to the auditorium where the debate was taking place, Wilfried Ruetten, director of the European Journalism Centre and moderator of the debate, invited the two men seated next to him to “confess their sins in this beautifully renovated church.”

Given this context, the audience was hoping for something more: would a Palestinian and an Israeli maybe, just maybe, attempt to propose a mutually beneficial solution to their centuries-long territorial dispute?

Speaking in turns, both Primor and Khoury said they believed proactive change and reconciliation was possible between Palestinians and Israelis. At the same time they acknowledged that both Israelis and Palestinians have made some less than optimal choices in admitting the fact that the establishment of a single state, either Israeli or Palestinian, will only prolong the bloodshed, not bring about its cessation. “The Palestinians have never missed a chance to miss a chance, and the Israelis will always take the right decision… after they’ve tried everything else,” said Primor, quoting a sarcastic joke often heard in Israel.

Both speakers adhered fairly well to the confessional format of the debate, and their candor allowed the audience to grasp some of the difficult realities that are implicit to the conflict: the Palestinian failure to enact self-determination and the relative impunity with which the Israelis can monopolize every type of resource available within Israel’s territorial boundaries, largely thanks to their strong powerbase in the United States.

“The time is ripe”
Primor and Khoury pleaded for two central strategies: first, the establishment of two separate sovereign states and second, the need to increase external pressure. They see external pressure, in the form of diplomatic moderation, as the only method to convince their countrymen that the end of their turf war will be mutually beneficial. “The time is ripe for a resolution of the conflict,” said Avi Primor, “because both parties now agree to the way out.” “But,” he added, “only a multilateral push in the right direction will help us get there.”

The speakers however acknowledged past failures in this endeavor, referring mainly to the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 and describing them as a fiasco that all future legislation must avoid repeating.

Primor and Khoury shared the opinion that only multilateral negotiations would provide a solution. But while the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Europe were mentioned as essential partners in solving the conflict, the UN, other NGOs and IGOs were simply disregarded. Whether this was due to the speakers’ scepticism towards these organizations, or just to a lack of time, remained unclear.

Another aspect perhaps lacking from the debate was an in-depth discussion of one of the most controversial aspects currently dividing the world view of Palestine, namely the fact that the present Palestinian executive is jointly led by Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization by many countries, most notably by the United States but also by the Netherlands who recently refused to allow the Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh to visit because of his affiliation to Hamas.

In their speeches, Saman Khoury and Avi Primor overall did not pose any resistance towards the idea of talking with Hamas. Does this speak of the transience of government, and its irrelevance in the grand scheme of Israel and Palestine’s history? This is possible, but it seemed more likely that the subject of Hamas was simply a proverbial “kettle of worms” that the speakers did not wish to touch on for their own sake.

Europe as mediator
After both speakers had concluded their “confessions”, there was room for questions from the audience, all of which were very incisive and originated from a very diverse assortment of experiences. One of the four questions that were asked came from a man who had spent some time in Israel and witnessed first hand how difficult it is for Palestinians “to go to the bank”: instead of walking up into an institutional establishment as we are used to taking for granted here, the only effective method for Palestinians to enact international commerce is to smuggle in leather sacks full of currency. “Does this mean that the Palestinians are gaining control one leather sack at a time?” the man asked. “No,” replied Saman Khoury, “all the leather sacks in the world will not bring true change.” “Only self-determination and a strong external moderator will help us achieve peace,” he added.

Both speakers stressed the role that Europe, whose future was represented by the University student population in the audience, could play in becoming the catalytic force that would bring a solution to the Middle-eastern conflict.

In Avi Primor’s opinion, Europe is especially well placed to act as a powerful mediator, because it carries within its own history eerie similarities to the Israeli-Palestinian divisions. But the question is: does Europe want to be a diplomatic actor?

Primor regretted that European countries are seemingly unwilling to act in a way that might place them at odds with allies on which they depend for economic survival. But he pointed out, and Khoury agreed with him, that while this cautious attitude may not be prejudicial in the short term, the mere geographical proximity of the conflict might well very soon start burning Europe’s cuticles.

Judging by the loud applause at the end of the debate, the educated and experienced words uttered that evening were well received by the packed audience. Regardless of the discursive format that the debate took, – as “agreement is easy with Saman,” (Avi Primor) – , the speakers’ informal tone and open confessions proved effective. Their accounts of more failures than successes in the search for peace in their region were perceived, not as a statement of hopelessness, but on the contrary, as an invitation for concrete action.

By Eliot Rolen and Louisa Kistemaker

Eliot Rolen (US) and Louisa Kistemaker (Germany) are currently studying at University College Maastricht. They are both correspondents for Informeel, within the newly launched UM Student Media initiative.

More photographs of the debate, by Thibault Griez

Photographs by Thibault Griez

Thibault Griez was born in France but raised in Belgium. He decided to attend the University of Maastricht a couple of years ago because of its innovative teaching system. Following a somewhat unusual academic background (life science, Knowledge Engineering followed by a masterclass in digital photography), he is now studying Arts & Culture to pursue a carrier in photojournalism. Thibault also contributes to UM Student Media.