
“Peace in the Middle East” is a phrase that many have come to associate with unfulfilled promises, hopeless political efforts, and crushed hopes. Indeed, the past year and a half alone has seen a massive escalation of what increasingly seems like a cycle of violence with no feasible end in sight. In this short period of time, we have witnessed: a brutal war in the Gaza Strip that has taken tens of thousands of lives; missile exchanges between Israel and Iran; ship hijackings by Houthi militants in Yemen; and Israeli ground invasions of Lebanon and Syria. Certainly, there have also been some moments for optimism. The Syrian Civil War, for instance, has been closer than ever to ending since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial regime in December. A recent ceasefire in Gaza has allowed hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians and dozens of Israeli hostages to return home. The conflict in Lebanon, while not completely over, has somewhat deescalated since a ceasefire last November. Nevertheless, the current lull in these conflicts seems tenuous, and increasing Israeli incursions in the West Bank, coupled with the ascension to power of a strongly pro-Israel Republican administration, call into question whether the end of fighting on one front may simply mark preparations for conflict on another.
To address these problems, the University of Virginia hosted former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Salam Fayyad and New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman last Tuesday. Fayyad took office as Prime Minister in June 2007, shortly after the contentious Palestinian election the year before that led to the current split between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. He served until June 2013, returning to UVA after speaking at an event hosted by the Jefferson Society last October. Friedman, who has written for The New York Times for over four decades, also returned to UVA having given a talk on Israeli politics for students in the Jewish Studies Department last May. The conversation between Fayyad and Friedman was organized by the Jewish Studies Department, whose director, Professor Jennifer Geddes, delivered the opening remarks.
Some of the first questions addressed the current state of affairs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the recent ceasefire in Gaza and reconstruction efforts in the region. Fayyad was highly critical of the top-down approach that many who have attempted to solve the conflict hold towards achieving Palestinian statehood. In his view, past efforts have focused too much on dialogue between national leaders and grand proclamations of intent, rather than building infrastructure from the ground up. To illustrate this, he provided two notable examples: the Oslo agreements of the 1990s, in which Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed to a plan for Palestinian statehood that in reality has been in limbo for decades; and the recent agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority brokered by China that addressed postwar co-governance of Gaza, which has so far failed to materialize. In his view, building up infrastructure and improving quality of life in Palestine is the superior solution, as these efforts would provide a foundation for later political efforts that have so far been lacking.
Friedman agreed with the value of building up Palestinian infrastructure, and provided his main takeaway on the war: “no side had won.” Israel lost because it failed to achieve its primary goal of the war—to remove Hamas from Gaza—and thoroughly harmed its international reputation. Hamas lost because, although it managed to stay in power, it now faces the insurmountable task of rebuilding a Gaza Strip in which the vast majority of buildings have been damaged or destroyed and countless thousands of Palestinians have been killed or displaced. Friedman was particularly critical of Israel’s lack of a governance plan for Gaza after the war, listing it as one of the main reasons that the war had dragged on for so long with no end in sight.
Discussion soon moved to the prospects of a two-state solution. Friedman stated that while the idea of a two-state solution has come under attack, especially in recent years, he has stood behind it consistently for decades, viewing it as the only feasible means of ending the conflict. As a means for ensuring peace, Friedman floated the idea of having a third party (e.g., United States forces) deploy in Israel and Palestine to serve as a peacekeeping and mediating force between the two parties. Fayyad stated that he was also in support of a two-state solution, and criticized the notion that there is a “one-state reality” in Israel and Palestine. In his view, it may be better to view the current situation not as two states in opposition, or a single state occupying another, but rather as multiple states vying for their own interests. Among these competing “states” listed by him were the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu’s government in Israel proper, the Palestinian Authority’s government in the West Bank enclaves, and the Israeli settler movement in the rest of the West Bank.
The two also discussed President Donald Trump’s policies on the conflict, particularly his proposal that Palestinians in Gaza be resettled in the West Bank. Fayyad stated that such a proposal was obviously impractical and unethical, noting prior tensions in areas with large Palestinian refugee populations and the clear desire of displaced Northern Gazans to return to their homes. He also noted, however, that like with many other aspects of the conflict, Trump’s policies were an unfortunate reality that had to be dealt with, not merely condemned as unfeasible.
The final question asked was for the two to each share a personal anecdote that helped them better understand the conflict. Fayyad recounted a story in which, while Prime Minister, he and a group of activists attempted to build a road near Israeli-owned land on “Land Day,” a Palestinian commemorative holiday. While the road was repeatedly torn down through multiple attempts, Fayyad and the activists were finally able to overcome Israeli efforts, and the road stands to this day. Friedman provided a story in which, while in Lebanon, he was offered a chance to sit and drink tea with the man who was hosting him, and declined it, deciding it was more worthwhile to continue writing. He stated that this was emblematic of these conflicts—to solve them, it is necessary to have more people working and fewer people relaxing and drinking tea. He also recounted the story of an Israeli woman on October 7th who was saved by a group of Arabs. She, in turn, saved them when Israeli soldiers who found them wrongly believed they had abducted her. This story, in his words, emphasized the foundational aspect of this conflict: “it’s complicated.”
Leave a Reply