Related Resources

Sari Nusseibeh began his presentation by describing the first Intifada as a fight for the cause of freedom, a stark contrast to fighting for the sake of violence. The two main slogans of the uprising were freedom and independence, focused primarily on Palestinian disengagement from the Israeli economic and administrative occupation, with the goal of building a unilaterally self-governing authority in its place. Dr. Nusseibeh was adamant in his assertion that the Palestinian people are not inherently violent; rather than a mere expression of violence, the Intifada was instead the outpouring of a people’s yearning for freedom with the goal of establishing a state apparatus to ensure the fulfillment of basic human values. This claim was further reinforced by the overwhelming support among Palestinians for the two-state peace initiative Dr. Nusseibeh cosponsored with Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli Shin Bet and member of the Labor party, launched on June 25, 2003.

Dr. Nusseibeh stated that a people denied their humanity will act out any way they know to try and regain it, a paradigm which he believes best explains the violence of both Intifadas. This perspective refutes many reviews of his latest book, which present Dr. Nusseibeh as a positive voice amid a sea of Palestinian negativity. According to Dr. Nusseibeh, the contrary is true. The majority of Palestinians do not want violence yet feel compelled to act out aggressively due to a lack of other clearly viable options. A feasible, non-violent approach would therefore be far more successful in obtaining the twin goals of freedom and independence. Dr. Nusseibeh characterized non-violence not just as a way, but the way, expressing the hope that a Palestinian state would come into being not by force, but by the merit of its cause and through the building of bridges.

Dr. Nusseibeh went further to describe how reconciliation of the Israelis and the Palestinians and movement towards a peaceful, two-state coexistence and cooperation would build bridges both locally and regionally. He outlined two images of the relationship between Israel and her Arab neighbors. The first is that of Israel as a dagger in the heart of the Arab world, with the intention of bleeding it to death. The second is that of Israel as the tip of an iceberg between two irreconcilable cultures, a conflict between two inherently separate worlds that can never be rectified. Dr. Nusseibeh voiced his concern with the adversarial nature of both perceptions, calling for the image of the iceberg to be turned upside down and viewed instead as the foundation of a pyramid upon which bridges of cooperation and understanding are built. The achievement of a two-state solution by non-violent means would be based on a mutual understanding that would transcend one conflict to help build bridges of cooperation in others.

In this way, Israel would not be viewed as a wall but rather as a bridge through which the gap between the West and the Arab world might be overcome. According to Dr. Nusseibeh, by beginning to build bridges and working together as equal partners, Israelis and Palestinians can affect real peace and cooperation based on understanding not only in Israel or Palestine or across the Middle East, but also throughout the entire world. Dr. Nusseibeh closed his remarks by expounding the necessity of adhering to common human values and eschewing the power of violence in favor of the power of ideas as the basis for coexistence, cooperation, and peace.