Though not a fan of the word “solution,” Lev Luis Grinberg has one for the Israel-Palestine conflict: not one, not two, but three states.
Grinberg, a guest lecturer from Ben Gurion University in Israel and author of the recently published work, “Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine: Democracy Versus Military Rule,” came to Columbia University on Tuesday afternoon to discuss his beliefs on moving towards peace in the region by establishing three new political arenas in the area—one for each nation, and a third for a union of both sides. The discussion was hosted by the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and the department of sociology.
Grinberg—who is in New York for just 3 days—lectured to a packed room of faculty and students on the history and future of the regional conflict, while also diving into deeper conjecture on the meanings of political space, national borders, and violence.
He started by saying he would like to choose his words carefully. “I don’t like the word conflict, because it assumes the relations between Israel and Palestine are conflictual,” he said.
Jumping into a discussion of his book and the Israeli regime, Grinberg said, “When borders are not clear, violence appears.” This is one of the fundamental problems for Israel, he said. And political power itself can in fact be “symbolic violence,” he argued, saying that representatives have the power to silence a group when they do not speak for them.
The military, he said, is an institution that “can use violence to repress inner forces inside society.” And when they hold back their powers of violence, a political space becomes available. With a national identity which he claims is defined by fear and hatred for another group, Israel, he said, does just the opposite of what it should be doing—it closes political space.
And ultimately, closed political space, he argued, means closed doors to critique.
Near the end of his lecture, he said that the solution is in fact not to use the word “solution” at all. He said, “Talking about solution is a conflict resolution game where people that sit in armchairs think at home, what is the best thing to do.”
One and two state solutions would both fail, he said. Along with support from an outside party, he said that leaders need to think of “political institutions as containers of conflict.” And with three arenas, one for Israel, one for Palestine, and a third for union between the nations, the conflict could head in the right direction—towards an ultimate peace.
One student asked about the significance of framing each side’s opponent, to which Grinberg responded, “Definitely, it is crucial.” He argued that the issues must be discussed in manners that open up the debate to both sides.
After the lecture, Yinon Cohen, Sociology Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies, who is currently teaching a class called, “The Dynamics of Israeli Society,” said that these kinds of discussions are necessary. “As you can see, there is much interest on campus in understanding the rise and fall of the peace process.”
Grinberg—who has been traveling all over the nation for the launch of his book—said in an interview after the event that he was particularly interested in coming to Columbia. “There is a lot of repression of critiques of Israel here,” he said, “It is most important to criticize.”
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.