Speech Analysis – Representations of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
The Israeli-Palestine Conflict is a complex political situation spanning nearly a century, with great divides in ideology and perspective on either side of this escalating situation. In the wake of sectarian violence and widening gulfs in culture and religion, it is difficult to find a way out of this process. The road to peace is a rocky one, and nowhere is this more acutely exemplified than in the rhetoric of the respective representatives at the UN, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Through their respective addresses to the United States Congress and the United Nations, the differences in perspective regarding this conflict become incredibly clear, and the way to peace becomes increasingly murky.
In his speech at the Joint Session of Congress on May 24, 2011, Benjamin Netanyahu lays bare both the state of Israel’s relationship with America and the state of the peace process with Palestine. First, he takes great care to celebrate his hosts on their important and vital role in the peace process and the maintenance of the Israeli state in the Middle East: “Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism” (Netanyahu, 2011). Here, Netanyahu establishes his opinion that the state of Israel works together with the United States of America to maintain its presence in the Middle East, and that America is a vital part of that process.
The Israeli perspective on the conflict is that the nation of Israel provides a measure of civilization and peace to a relatively chaotic area of the world. According to Netanyahu, “In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability” (Netanyahu, 2011). In this way, Netanyahu has been cementing Israel as America’s link to controlling and maintaining security in the Middle East. Netanyahu even puts forth the notion that Israel’s stability is the key to peace in the region: “Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future” (Netanyahu, 2011). Israel advances its argument toward the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict largely through the lens of the US; granted, this is due to the speech’s target audience being the US Congress, but the message is communicated nonetheless that Israel holds itself up as a beacon of democracy and peace in the region.
On the subject of the Arab Spring, Netanyahu notes that the burst of democratic spirit that was happening there at the time could soon be undercut by the instability they purport to defend against. “The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. This same tyranny smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.“ (Netanyahu, 2011). By noting these precedents for societal collapse and violence, Netanyahu furthers his speech’s perspective that his country needs to have continued support to bring peace to these areas. Much of this is due to Israel’s perception as a singular guardian of Western ideals in the area: “Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different” (Netanyahu, 2011). Here, Netanyahu characterizes the rest of the Middle East – and by extension, the Muslim world – as backwards and uncivilized.
The perspective of Israel toward Palestine is one that is concerned with the rise of radical Islam in the country; their official line is that they support Islam but fear for its more militant elements: “Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam” (Netanyahu, 2011). For Israel, peace will come through democracy, which Netanyahu believes Israel is the sole purveyor of in the Middle East: “Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East” (Netanyahu, 2011).
When it comes down to the actual discussion regarding the relationship between Israel and Palestine, Netanyahu states he is committed to peace: “The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians” (Netanyahu, 2011). Netanyahu claims that Israel’s Arabs are the only ones who have “real democratic rights,” and “Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East” (Netanyahu, 2011). This perspective demonstrates Israel’s confidence in its righteousness in its place in the Middle East.
Netanyahu speaks on the subject of peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine; it seems as though both sides are willing to accept that the other state has a right to exist. “We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state” (Netanyahu, 2011). This is an incredible leap of faith for the Israeli state, as one of the central tenets of the conflict is that both sides believe that they should have a right to be there, almost at the expense of the existence o the other state. For the Israeli state to make note of its willingness to live alongside Palestine is fairly important; Netanyahu insists further that “our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state” (Netanyahu, 2011).
The main hindrance of the peace process, according to Netanyahu, is that the Palestinian state will not accept the existence of Israel, to which he posits a simple solution: “My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have doneand say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state’“(Netanyahu, 2011). Netanyahu states that the Palestinian people, however, maintain an anti-Semitic way of thinking, educating their children to hate Jews and stubbornly refusing to stop the conflict. Their reverence of figures whom Israel deems terrorists is another black mark on them, and Israel is under the impression that this means Palestine does not want to coexist with Israel. Because of these social inequalities and the seeming unreasonableness of the Palestinian government in their negotiations, “Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda” (Netanyahu, 2011).
Abbas’ speech at the United Nations in September of 2011 puts forth the Palestinian perspective on this complex conflict. From his perspective, the Israelis have been the ones who have stubbornly refused to come to even terms on their negotiations: “We entered those negotiations with open hearts and attentive ears and sincere intentions, and we were ready with our documents, papers and proposals” (Abbas, 2011). Abbas claims that the Palestinian state, which has lived in a constant state of occupation ever since the 1940s, has been under threat from Israeli oppression during this entire time – a status that Israel refuses to give up. “The core issue here is that the Israeli government refuses to commit to terms of reference for the negotiations that are based on international law and United Nations resolutions, and that it frantically continues to intensify building of settlements on the territory of the State of Palestine” (Abbas, 2011). Abbas, in essence, sees that the Israeli occupation does not want to give up its own usurping of Palestinian land and territory, and therefore cannot be negotiated with.
According to Abbas, the peace process is being interfered with by these constant threats of Israeli settlement on Palestinian land; their own borders are shrinking because of these incursions, taking away further land from Palestine: “The occupation is racing against time to redraw the borders on our land according to what it wants and to impose a fait accompli on the ground that changes the realities and that is undermining the realistic potential for the existence of the State of Palestine” (Abbas, 2011).
Abbas’ perspective on Palestine runs contrary to Netanyahu’s, as he believes that Palestine is still a “vibrant and cohesive society that had been contributing in a pioneering and leading way in the cultural, educational and economic renaissance of the Arab Middle East” (Abbas, 2011). This contradicts Netanyahu’s assumption that Israeli was a sole beacon of light in the Middle East, as Abbas himself believes that Palestinian society is rich and innovative. These two conflicting ideas of each other’s cultures is likely a contributing factor to the impasse they have reached in peace negotiations; neither country respects the other’s accomplishments.
According to Abbas, the very idea of the Israeli-Palestinian state is something that leaves the Palestinians at a great disadvantage; in essence, the way to complete justice would be to allow the Palestinian state in full to be Palestinian, kicking Israel out. However, in the light of international pressure and the need to survive, “we decided to adopt the path of relative justice - justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people” (Abbas, 2011). In this way, Abbas claims that the current borders are not ideal, but are something that Palestinians have learned to accept as a partial recompense for the evils committed against them. This was done for the sake of ending the constant religious fighting that had been happening in the area for centuries: “Wemade a major concession in order to achieve a historic compromise that would allow peace to be made in the land of peace” (Abbas, 2011). To that end, Abbas likely believes he is being magnanimous by accepting the presence of Israel in the Middle East.
Near the end of the speech, Abbas makes his direction for the nation of Palestine clear: “The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine” (Abbas, 2011). By this, Abbas is referring to the cessation of the aforementioned settlements and border changes taking place on the part of the Israelis; he needs that to stop in order for peace to be an option: “the Palestine Liberation Organization is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the basis of the adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy and a complete cessation of settlement activities” (Abbas, 2011).
During his speech, Abbas is careful not to demonize Israel, but merely to ask them to cease the things they are doing that they object to: “Our efforts are not aimed at isolating Israel or de-legitimizing it; rather we want to gain legitimacy for the cause of the people of Palestine” (Abbas, 2011). Abbas merely wants to gain international support for Palestine, which he does through his intention to submit Palestine for entry as a full member of the United Nations: “Your support for the establishment of the State of Palestine and for its admission to the United Nations as a full member is the greatest contribution to peacemaking in the Holy Land” (Abbas, 2011). Here, like Netanyahu did with the United States, Abbas is cementing the United Nations’ status as a friend to Palestine, and is trying to enlist their help in defending the right of Palestine to exist as it is.
Both of these speeches have different approaches to their characterization of the essential problems of the peace process. For one, Netanyahu explains the problem with the peace process is Palestine being a stubbornly regressive society that refuses to change its ways to become more progressive. Conversely, Abbas claims that Israel is a constantly oppressive occupying force, whose actions in the area disrespect and disenfranchise the Palestinian people even more than they already have been by accepting such a meager handout as a consolation prize for the centuries of oppression they endured. Each side places responsibility on the other nation; Israel for being too Draconian in its policies, and Palestine for being too radical and violent in its rebellious practices. Both sides claim that the other side is unwilling to negotiate, and also both sides are willing to say they accept the presence of the other state.
In conclusion, the speeches by Netanyahu and Abbas highlight the basic problems of the Israel-Palestine conflict. These two perspectives show a pair of countries who wish to gain international support for their right to continue their objectives toward peace (Israel from the US, and Palestine from the UN). They wish to protect their interests; Israel wants to remain a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, safe from retaliation by other countries such as Iran and Palestine, while Palestine wants to have international support in the protection of its borders from settlement activities perpetuated by the Israelis. Both of these speeches appear to be talking at cross-purposes; Israel and Palestine want similar goals, but neither speech addresses the issues of the other, as Netanyahu makes no mention of settlement practices and Palestine skirts past the idea of radical Muslim extremism in its culture. The result is a pair of statements that do not address the actual problems both sides have with each other, instead arguing for support from others to back up their own existing positions.
References
Abbas, Mahmoud. “Palestinian President Abbas United Nations Address.” C-SPAN. September
23, 2011. <http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301726-2>.
Netanyahu, Benjamin. “Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu Speech at the Joint
Session of Congress – May 24, 2011.” Youtube. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BaMLlnb_KI>.
