Amid the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, it is difficult to be hopeful about ending this conflict. Faced with this reality and driven by my desire to see the conflict resolved, I joined 21 students from around the country in simulating negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians at the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars in Washington, D.C.
After nearly two weeks of negotiations, our Palestinian and Israeli delegations reached a peace treaty. The key to our success was a sustained and evenhanded commitment from the international community, led by the United States, which forced the parties to go beyond the presiding hate and mistrust and to create a realistic comprehensive agreement.
To begin the exercise, Andrea Barron, the faculty director of the seminar, provided a balanced history of the conflict. Barron then divided the students into delegations that represented the Quartet--the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and an Arab delegation, which had representatives from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia The remaining two delegations represented the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Each student was assigned a leader character to role play. My role was that of President Bush.
At the time the seminar began, the real “road map” seemed to be advancing. The leaderships of both the Israelis and the Palestinians were taking cautious steps in an attempt to comply with the U.S.-backed plan. It was fairly easy for our simulation to move along. But before long, several Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli military actions brought the road map to a standstill.
The events on the ground affected our negotiations dramatically. The tension between the Israeli and the Palestinian delegations grew, and from that point forward both sides were reluctant to compromise.
Together with the members of the Quartet, I had to hold separate talks with each delegation. Discreetly, I spoke with the Israelis and the Palestinians, addressing their concerns but at the same time demanding their compliance with the road map. For instance, I pressured the Palestinian delegation to provide Israel with specific tangible results in its fight against the terrorist groups: for instance, to stop the smuggling of weapons through tunnels. I also promised them that Sharon would freeze settlement expansion. I put the same kind of pressure on the Israelis to act on their part of the road map while assuring them the Palestinians were changing the situation on the ground.
At times it was difficult to play the president simply because the real President Bush is not as directly involved in the process as I was during the seminar. I realize that it wasn’t enough to simply present the road map to the parties; we had to help them find the ways in which to implement it. Oftentimes as President Bush, I had to personally put my credibility on the line to guarantee a compromise from one side or the other. I believe greater involvement of the real administration would force the parties to negotiate or at the very least stop the escalation.
Another aspect in which I was different from the President Bush was that despite the firm bond he has with Prime Minister Sharon, I believed it was important for the president to ensure the Palestinian delegation that their interests were being considered equally.
As the real road map began to disintegrate on the ground, we had to part from reality. We knew that playing the roles of our characters could not lead to an agreement. The simulation shifted from being a reflection of reality to a hypothetical negotiating exercise. We devised our own creative solutions to the issues.
The treaty we signed included an independent Palestinian state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip; Jerusalem would be divided between the two countries, with the UN overseeing the holy sites; and the Palestinian refugees would have the option of receiving compensation or resituating in Israel, the United States, the European Union, Canada or Saudi Arabia.
For many of the students, the seminar provided an important insight into one of the most complex conflicts in international affairs. For me, it strengthened the faith I have in peace. By the time we completed our simulation, the implementation of the real road map was stalled. Today, it is likely to become another failed peace plan. It is difficult to see a way to bring the two sides together, but if there is one thing this simulation can contribute is that under a balanced and persistent international involvement, led by the United States, the conflict is solvable.
Yaniv Gafner, a journalism and media studies major at Rutgers-Newark, can be reached at ygafner@yahoo.com.
