Objective of the seminar was to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from various angles and to understand the red lines of the conflict partners; it covered historical backgrounds, the way the press covers the conflict and different options for moving forward. The discussions were held in a closed workshop in order to allow the participants to speak freely.

The traditional religious population has an ever growing influence on the political agenda. The Shas party which primarily represents Haredi Sephardi and Mizrahi Judaism was founded in 1984; ever since the elections that same year it has been part of every Israeli government. Shas has at times been able to exert disproportionate influence by gaining control of the balance of power in the Knesset. The party was formed under the leadership of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (a former Israeli Chief rabbi), who remains its spiritual leader today. While the party initially started out with a social agenda it is gaining more and more influence on the Israeli-Palestinian track. Many of its voters are Sephardi and Mizrahi who descend from Jews living in Arab countries and used to have good understanding with Arabs; some even speaking fluent Arabic. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef made a celebrated ruling, stating that parts of Israel could be allowed to be turned over as part of a peace agreement, on grounds of Pikuach Nefesh – the Jewish principle which favors the securing of human life over other values. Among the right-wing spectrum where prominent attitude is the argument that “the land was given to the Jews by G-d” this ruling opens a door to the possibility of negotiating a two state solution.

The seminar kicked off with the presentation of two alternative proposals for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on contrasting political perspectives, from the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The intention was to allow an open discussion of the assumptions behind each proposal, and their adherence to critical secular and religious values of Israeli society.

Gadi Baltiansky, director of Heskem, presented an analysis of the process that led from the failure of the Barak-Arafat negotiations in Camp David, to an academic exercise aiming to check if reaching a peace agreement was a tangible possibility, to the actual signing ceremony of the Geneva Initiative. He explained that one of the key elements in the Geneva Initiative was to provide realistic and achievable solutions on every issue, based on previous attempts to reach a negotiated solution. The Geneva Accord was never officially accepted by either side but is often cited and used as reference even by official negotiating partners in the Israeli-Palestinian context.

In the second presentation, Yoav Sorek, editor of the shabbat supplement of the religious newspaper Makor Rishon, introduced participants to the “Israeli Initiative – The right road to peace”, a proposal that claims to offer a moral, practical, and simple formula for the long term solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Amongst others, he claims that the refugee problem has to be approached from a moral/human standpoint not a political. Compared to other refugee problems all over the world where these people have been helped to become regular citizens of their host country, the Palestinian refugees have not been rehabilitated for political reasons; one of them being that their wretched status serves the purpose of Palestinian terrorist organizations. As a result, the entire Arab world has regarded the preservation of this status as a means of attacking the legitimacy of the state of Israel. This problem should be tackled by implementing a generous compensation program for all Palestinian refugees who will be given the option of making a new life and being accepted as citizens in a range of countries that welcome immigration. He added that according to reliable surveys this is the desire of the majority of the refugees. Furthermore, the initiative suggests that Israel in coordination with Jordan will extend its sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria”. Arab residents of these areas should become citizens of Jordan (Palestine). Their status, their relationship to the two countries, and the nature of the administration in the populated areas would be formulated and set forth in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan.

In the following questions and answers session a surprising reaction was noticed from the participants’ side. While the Shas political movement is perceived as pro-right wing, surprisingly, participants questioned the right-wing initiative as too extremist and not democratic. Participants were not willing to legitimize a plan declaring some of the Israeli population as second class citizens. To highlight their points participants turned to suggestions from the Geneva Initiative as options for reaching peace. Gradually, a collective perspective began to emerge among participants that any agreement would have to be based upon more equitable solutions.

On the next panel Mr. Avi Issacharoff, a well known journalist of one of the three main daily newspapers in Israel “Haaretz” who covers Palestinian affairs, gave a presentation on the subject “The Media and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”. He shared with the participants personal stories of meetings he held with the Palestinian leadership over the years (PLO and Hamas) in order to provide them with knowledge concerning the dialogue (official and non-official) that took place since the Oslo days. He explained how Marwan Barghouti – who is perceived to be the only figure who might be able to unite the Palestinian nation – gained his political authority during the First and Second Intifadas, and was arrested by Israel in 2002 on the charges of murder of Israeli civilians and attacks on Israeli soldiers. During prisoner exchange negotiations at the end of 2006, Hamas demanded his release, along with that of many other Palestinians, in exchange for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

He continued to define the problem from both sides of the conflict by saying that both sides tend to believe they can really achieve things by using force. He further explained that the Palestinians have two red lines in negotiating with Israel – the right on the Temple Mount and the right of return of refugees.

The presentation was followed by questions from participants and revealed misunderstandings on specific issues. For instance, contrary to what some understood, the Temple Mount claimed by Palestinians does not include the iconic Jewish religious site, the Western Wall. Interestingly, participants reacted with empathy towards the plight of Muslim fundamentalists that, in the context of the confrontations between Hamas and Fatah, were arrested by Arafat’s secular forces and had their beards – which as in Judaism have a religious significance – shaved in an attempt to humiliate and disempower them.

The second day of the seminar started with a half day tour of the Shamrom region along the separation barrier. The tour was led by Shaul Arieli, Col. (res.), former IDF Brigade Commander in the Gaza Strip and head of the Peace Administration under the Barak government.

During the tour Arieli explained that to date, nearly a decade after the outbreak of the Second Intifada – the time when Israel decided to build the separation barrier – only 60% of the 760 kilometers planned for the barrier have been built. Four huge gaps in the fence, in addition to dozens of small ones, alongside passageways lacking security measures, will set the stage for an escalation in violence likely to occur because of the absence of a diplomatic process, the inciting of East Jerusalem by razing homes there, the accelerated expansion of settlements, and the unfinished negotiations on a cease-fire and the release of Gilad Shalit.

Along the various stops, he explained for which reasons the separation fence was built along that specific line, gave historical backgrounds back to 1948 regarding the determination of the green line and the history of the settlements in that area.

In the afternoon the sessions continued a panel on “The Future of the Peace Process under the new government” by the Minister of Religious Services (Shas) Ya’akov Margi.

Rabbi Margi opened by saying he sees himself as the usher of this educational program among the traditional-religious population. He has raised the question of the division of Jerusalem if a peace process will be carried out and responded by saying that he will not support the dividing of Jerusalem as a basic price for peace, but should there be real peace, he himself will be willing to talk about it. Margi noted that the Shas Party is willing to go great lengths to prevent even one Israeli soul from being harmed. He suggested that the Israeli government take an example from conflict resolution processes elsewhere in the world such as Ireland (referring to the good Friday agreement/Belfast Agreement). Margi stated that none of the parties in the Knesset have a war agenda and that both sides are suffering from the current status quo.

The Q&A session was particularly animated, given the transcendence of Rabbi Margi’s statement on Jerusalem. Having a Minister in the Israeli government on behalf of Shas say such things in front of his own electorate represents a shift in the Shas agenda – not fearing of being perceived as pro-peace.

Last speaker was Mr. Sufyan Abu Zaidah, former Minister of Prisoners Affairs in the Palestinian Authority. He played an active role in the Palestinian resistance and spent years in Israeli prisons where he learned to speak excellent Hebrew.

As a PLO member who needed to escape from Gaza and resettle in Ramallah, Abu Zaidah explained to participants that there in not much hope for the Fatah and Hamas to be able to establish a unity government any time soon. Abu Zaidah mentioned the importance of an overall peace process that would include Syria and Lebanon and preferably be led by the Arab League. He believes that any government of Israel (even a right-wing one) will find itself at the end of the day respecting past agreements that were signed with the Palestinians.

Abu Zaidah finished his lecture by elaborating on the inter-religious dialogue which he sees as a crucial component of any peace process: “Without having a religious ruling of both Jewish and Islamic religious leaders concerning the holy places no solution to the conflict will be reached.”

The final comment which received a round of applause was: “If the overall dialogue for peace would have been handled by us (referring to Sephardic Jews) we would have had peace already”.

Katja Tsafrir