International Women's Commission | Talks at Google

I want to thank all of you for coming today. My name is Jessica Neuwirth. I'm the president of Equality now, an international women's rights organization. And I'm one of the international members of the International Women's Commission for a Just and Sustainable Israeli Palestinian Peace. Equality now has organized this US Tour with support from the Women Donors Network, which has made it possible. And I want to thank Terry Greenblatt, the tour organizer, and also Jackie Hunt, the IWC International Coordinator, for all of their work. And of course, I want to thank Google and the women at Google for organizing this opportunity for us to have an exchange with you. Pardon my voice. I feel. We feel that there's an urgent need for more dialogue in this country, particularly about the critical role that the United States can play in promoting a just and sustainable Israeli Palestinian peace. There's an urgent need for much more understanding in this country of the realities on the ground, the windows of opportunity that there are for peace, and the way in which those windows may be quickly closing. We have a responsibility, I believe, to do whatever we can to bring peace and security to the region, which is very much in our own national interest as well.

So.

Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women Peace and Security was adopted by the United nations in 2000. It recognizes the important contribution that women have to make and the critical role that they can play in conflict resolution. It calls for their inclusion at the highest levels of decision making. The International Women's Commission, or the IWC, was convened by UNIFEM, the the UN Development Fund for Women in 2005 at the request of Palestinian and Israeli women. Do you want me to put this map back up somehow?

Okay.

The IWC was convened in 2005 by UNIFEM in an effort to create a structure that would facilitate the implementation of Resolution 1325 in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It's structured to have 20 Palestinian members, 20 international members and 20 Israeli members. And it has three heads of state, women heads of state who serve currently as the honorary co chairs. They're Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Tarja Halonen, the President of Finland, and Ellen Johnson Sorleef, the President of Liberia. It has a number of honorary members who are supporting the work of the iwc. Their ministers and former ministers from Spain, Sweden, Italy and many other European countries. From the United States, we have two honorary members, Gloria Steinem, the writer and activist, and the Nobel Prize laureate, Jody Williams, who's worked on the international campaign to ban landmines. The Israeli, Palestinian and international Members of the IWC come from a diverse range of political leadership and civil society. We have members of the Knesset, we have the former Minister for Women's affairs of the Palestinian Authority, we have academics, and we have members of political parties. I want to now introduce the delegates from the IWC who are here for this tour. The Israeli delegates are Nava Eisen, who's just here to my left, the Director of the Archives of Jewish Education and an active member of Masom Watch, an Israeli women's organization that monitors the conduct of Israeli soldiers at checkpoints in the occupied territories. Nava is also a member of the Israeli Labor Party Central Committee. Next to Nava is Molly Malikar, the Executive Director of Bat Shalom, an Israeli women's venture for peace. Previously, Molly served as the Director of the Jerusalem Rape Crisis Center. The Palestinian delegates next, Molly, is Maha Abu Dhaiye Shammas, the co founder and Executive Director of the Women's center for Legal Aid and Counseling in Jerusalem and one of the founders of the iwc. And to her left, you should have seen Anan Atiri, the Executive Director of Planning and Management of the Nablus Governorate and a Fatah candidate in the last Palestinian Legislative Council elections. But Anan is not here, unfortunately, and it's because she was unable to get the travel permission that she needed from from Israel to get to the American Consulate to get her visa to come to the United States. So the State Department has made arrangements for her to go to Jordan, where she was able to get a visa, but because she lost so much time, she still hasn't arrived. So she will be joining us later, but we want to leave this seat for her to just remind you how difficult it is for Palestinians to travel, and Maha can give you more details about that. Among the active international members of the iwc, I just want to mention a few. Simone Susskind, who's the advisor to the Minister of Justice in Belgium, and Louisa Morgantini, the Vice President of the European Parliament. We also have Freeni Jinwala, the former speaker of the South African Parliament. Over the past few years, since it was founded, the IWC has been meeting many of the key players. Last year at the un, we met with the then Deputy Secretary General, and next week we are scheduled to meet with the current Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon. Last year, the IWC met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and we're hoping to meet with her again next week, if the scheduling can work. The IWC has met with top officials of the Arab League and the European Union, and Perhaps most importantly, the IWC has met with the Israeli Foreign Minister Zabi Livni and the Palestinian chief negotiator, Sa'd Erekat. These meetings continue, as do public hearings on the ground to build support for and commitment to peace. Now what we're going to do today is ask a series of questions that I'm going to put to the panelists and then we can open it up for discussion and comment. So the first question that I want to ask everyone is how and why did each of you become a member of the iwc? And we'll start with Maha.

In back home. Israel. Palestine. Peace has become, for the average person, associated with more bloodshed and violence. Since the Oslo peace process, the lives of the people has become more threatened, more endangered and the well being of the people has, has become more threatened. Clearly the process, even though, you know, President Clinton supported it and all of that has not been led by also members of both societies, civil societies, both societies also were not prepared enough to participate in a process and accept or be prepared if any kind of. Changes on the ground will have to take place. And so the disappointment and the failure of the peace process has created or caused more violence. And the second Intifada was definitely all sorts of military means were used against a population that didn't have an army. The Palestinian population, the world community was just watching and nobody was doing anything. Clearly it was politically motivated invasion and the world peace has become corrupted. And therefore those of us who have been working on exchange, Israeli, Palestinian women, felt that something else has to be done. We have to think out of the box. We have to think of different ways of dealing with this conflict. And there is no military solution to this conflict. Clearly there is no military solution, no matter how much military power is used. It has to be a political resolution to the conflict. And that's when we thought of the role of threat third parties. Because us Palestinian Israelis, even at that point, even Palestinian women and Israeli women were not able to cope with the difficulties of the issues. It's hitting each of us personally to the core. And so that's when we thought the role of the third party is of utmost importance. And that's why it's an international women's commission where the third party is seen as very active or proactive partner to.

Ensure.

This communication, to ensure the respect of agreements, to ensure the principles and the values. And people say, what are the principles and values? As women we look at human security as a basic element for any kind of security. There is no military security without human Security. And so we met and we thought, and I have to say it's the women at the global level who also supported the process from making it just an idea to studying it to accepting it and supporting it politically at various levels. And I have to say the idea was from back home. It was a Palestinian idea with Israeli idea. It was Israeli. It's a Palestinian woman who sat together. But we were supported by law school, law center, Yale University lawyers and did the research for us. We were supported by politicians, women politicians. The uniform decided to take it under its umbrella and now we have women presidents, honorary members. So really I think there is a time tremendous amount of support amongst everybody all over the world to help this process go forward. Because it is another way of negotiating peace. It is a peace that is dealing with basic human need for the need to live in security and dignity, that everybody needs their Palestinians as well as Israel, Israelis. And I think my role has been in translating, first of all having the idea and then from a Palestinian perspective, what is really peace for us, what really we need with peace and translating it into documents and negotiating it with my Israeli colleagues. And I'm committed to that process. Been a very difficult process at all levels, but it's what keeps us going. And I think it's what we have to keep doing because giving up is meaning accepting, giving up on life. And we all want to live. So from the deep desire to want to live, we have to keep going on this process.

Thanks, Maha. I should just mention that the founding doctor documents, many relevant documents, including the charter that Maho was referring to that was heavily negotiated, is all available on the website, which is iwc-peace.org Molly.

Molly Malika I'm Jewish living in Jerusalem and I've been longtime feminist activist and I'm engaged in the recent years with political dialogue of Israeli women with Palestinian women in the occupied territories. For me, it was a natural step to join the International Women's Commission. As a grassroots activist working for so many years with Palestinian colleagues, Palestinian women, Group for Peace and among my Israeli colleagues and learning the experience of the past peace negotiations where we know that one of the main reasons they failed was because the human aspect was not acknowledged. I can recall the Oslo process when beside the political negotiations which were going on between the two sides and the leadership, we could see that on the ground, on the ground with the Palestinian, with the help of our Palestinian colleagues, that the Israeli settlements continued to be expanded. A lot of abuses of the Palestinian population. And when we tried to bring this case to the leadership and especially to the international community. And speaking about it, we were told that everything will be settled down when the political negotiations will end up. Now we know that it didn't happen. So one of the things that we want to stress through the International Women's Commission is the need to keep international regulations, international law, human rights aspect to be integrated as a basic pillar into any political negotiations. And that's what we as Christians, grassroots activists are trying to bring into this discourse and lobby for integrating those basic elements into any political negotiations. That's one of my main motivations to be part in this initiative.

Thanks, Gava.

First of all, on a personal level, I would like to thank Google for the work that you are doing. I'm an archivist and I'm in the information business and before Google our work was much harder. This time when I'm asked a question, all I have to do is Google it. Most of the time my work is called out for me. So thank you for that. I'm the same as Molly. I'm an Israeli Jewish woman and I believe that every person in every nation has an equal right to live in dignity, in peace and have its own identity. That's why I'm a Zionist. I know that in many places in the world the word Zionist has lost its appeal. It looks as if the a bad world. But I was born just after the second World War and I know that for the people of Israel they couldn't live freely any other place. And on the same token, the Palestinian people has a right for their own independent state. Maybe the time will come that both nations can give up the sorry. Maybe the time will come that after so many years of animosity we will see the miracle that happened in Europe and we can have the larger Middle East. But until then I know that those people deserve to have their own place in the world where they can live their own national lives. Unfortunately, both people see this part of the world disappeared.

This part of the world disappeared.

It's such a small part of the world really. You can put into California and you don't see it and it will not have happen unless both people will have to give up some of their dreams. I don't say give up the right because we do have a right. But unless we are going to settle and having two state solutions, one next to the other, where Israelis can live in Israel and Palestinians can live in Palestine and have their own national state until then there will be no peace in the Middle east and I'm afraid no in the world. So that's why, besides all the many other things that I'm doing, I joined the IWC because I cannot really see how people are willing to throw away lives and money in order to gain land without seeing seeing that it's so simple. All you have to do is think about life first and then about land and try and work out a solution.

Thank you. As you may know, the United States has been working actively to organize a meeting between Israelis and Palestinians and likely involving other states as well, tentatively scheduled for mid November, which is quite soon. So the second question for the panelists is what thoughts do you have on this upcoming meeting organized by the US and what factors will make it more or less likely, in your view, to be successful? Do you want to start?

Maha.

I think the first thing is to look at what caused the failure of previous processes and learn from them. One of the failures I mentioned earlier is the lack of the involvement of civil societies in both societies in the process and lack of the preparation of both societies to be prepared to accept what comes out of the process. But another major cause of failure is the third parties who have brought the Israelis and the Palestinians together. And I'm talking here about the United States and the Europeans did not act as proactive political negotiators in ensuring the respect of agreements. There were agreements made, but then they left the two parties on their own and so the power took over, power dynamics took over and everybody was watching. I think a very important process is now, if to ensure third parties, United States, the Quartet, there is a body of the Quartet have to be proactively involved in ensuring the process to the end and ensuring that there is a timetable and respect of agreements according to timetables, otherwise it will deteriorate. And if this process fails, we will have even worse bloodshed in the region. And for us, we prefer to have no peace negotiations at this point if they are not thoroughly and carefully prepared for and they've got to succeed. And that's why we are eager that they do happen. This is an opportunity. It is a very important opportunity. But we want to make sure that what have been the gaps caused the failures in the past. The mistakes of the past are not repeated. I think also the whole issue of principles that respect the rights and dignities of peoples, those are very important values and principles. And in any peace negotiations they should be part of the process and also all outstanding issues, the five outstanding issues must be part of the peace negotiations. And it's not if it's going to be just to come out with a Document of principles. Forget it. Unless we deal with the all difficult issues of the settlements, of the borders, the Jerusalem, the refugees, the water. All of these difficult issues must be addressed and there must be time framework for implementation of agreements. Otherwise it's not going to be a peace negotiation process. It will be just a media stint, shake hands and then people will go home and the average person will pay the price. Few people have become richer out of the process. The military people, security people, more business for those. But the average person both in Israel and Palestine is going to pay heavily for this failure. And that's what we are trying to avoid. And urging the international community, urging communities to urge their government to ensure that all necessary preparation takes place for this coming peace Annapolis meeting.

Thanks, Molly.

Well, just a short comment adding to what Ma has said and I totally agree with you, Maha. Well, this upcoming political meeting and summit is something that we should also be a little bit optimistic about because we have to remember that in the Middle east it is very common to solve conflicts by war. And if you take the Israeli Palestinian case, I think since 2000 with the failure of Camp David, there was no political negotiations between the two sides. So we as women for peace always bless whenever the leadership on both sides decide to talk and not to use weapon. So this is one yet as Maha has said, that raising expectations and failure has devastating effects on people living in the area. So yes, on one hand I think we should bless any efforts from both sides trying to sit and negotiate. Yet we have to learn from the past and what were the reasons and the failures of the past to be wiser this time as people on both sides are tired, are tired of war and conflict. The majority of people on both sides are willing to finish this long conflict and very violent one. And we know that there are certain circumstances which can help to try to bring this summit to relatively success. I mean, you see that I'm very, I'm hesitating to be optimistic. I mean we had long experiences of being optimistic and people in the region are very cynical, are very cynical towards the word peace, are very cynical to political process. Yet on the other side they are tired and correctly people are paying high price for the continuation of this conflict. I think I want to address from here to the American public who has, who can ask their own leadership some hard questions. And American people and the American regime has a great part to play in this coming meeting. One is that it's high time not to speak about process, but process which will lead to some kind of concrete results. And we have to call this game by its name. It has to end up with the Israeli occupation. This is basic. And in order to get to a comprehensive peace between the two sides, there are some basic elements which are the five issues that Maha mentioned. We cannot avoid speaking on those issues in order to get to a comprehensive and a solid peace between the two sides. So America does have a very great part to play here. We had enough with speaking of horizons. We want something concrete horizon, but by its definition it's something so far away that you can never touch it. So it's crucial. It's crucial that this meeting with all the reservations that we have will happen, I think.

But.

But we have to make sure that it is going on correct direction. And that is our concern. Part of the reason that we are here to speak with you about it.

Thanks, Naba.

Continuing on what Molly has said. There are some slogans that every President, Prime Minister, Israeli or America would use when speaking addressing the Israeli Palestinian issue. And they will speak that Israel has a right to live within secure defendable borders. And by saying that they are giving Israel a permit to annex more and more part from what we call the West Bank. I wish the map was on.

I'm sorry we lost the map here.

And they are putting all kind of roadblocks and barriers that do not allow people to cross from towns to cities and go abroad. All by the name of secure borders and defendable borders. But after the two Gulf wars and whatever is happening in the world, we know very well that there isn't such a thing as secure border that you can defend by army. Even if all the Israeli army will stand on the green line, the old Israeli Palestinian border holding hands, they cannot stop the people of Palestine. If the people of Palestine will not have the will and will not be satisfied that they have their own national state and they can live in whatever land that is left after Palestine, the old mandatory Palestine and was divided between the Jews and the Palestinians in 1947, 1948. They at least should have the ability to build their own state in what we call the 67 borders, the pre 67 war. I think that America, the United States will not be less pro Israel if it will tell the Israeli public that by occupying someone else's land they are not contributing to the defense of Israel, only to the destruction of the two society. And we really need a shift because you can see every candidate that plans for election in America will come and say yes, I'm for stronger south secure Israel. For Israel to be secure, we need a friendly Palestine living peacefully next to us. And no guns can do that.

Thank you to everyone for all of those thoughtful comments. I want to now come back to security council resolution 1325 and ask the panelists, since that resolution was adopted in 2000, has there been more involvement of women in efforts to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict? And more specifically, what kind of role do you envision for the IWC in this upcoming November meeting, as well as the efforts of the Quartet to secure a just and sustainable peace? And I should just mention, Maha mentioned the Quartet. And just as by way of background, the Quartet was came together a number of years ago and is composed of the us, the un, the European Union and Russia and had come up with a roadmap that had various stages of implementation. And I think it's fair to say that we've fallen off that roadmap some time ago, but the Quartet still exists. So in terms of the US meeting and the Quartet, what role do you envision? Maybe this time, just for variety, we'll go the other way. Nava, do you want to start?

Okay. After the UN Resolution 1325 was adopted in Israel, there's some group of women started to organize and try to implement it in Israel too. There is a lobby of women that is based in Haifa, it's a northern town in Israel called Ishael Isha that they are really doing a recession research and trying to find out all the fact that needed in order to implement it in Israel. And they mobilized a couple of women. Member of Knesset, Member of Parliament. One of them is now our Minister of Education, Julie Tamir and ETI Livny, who is not a member of Knesset, unfortunately she lost her seat last election, but she's a member of the iwc. And with the help of some men, some good men, they moved an Israeli law that support the 1325 declaration. They had difficulties. They wanted that the Israeli law would say that every committee and every team that is negotiating peace will include at least 25% women. But they couldn't pass it through the Israeli Parliament. But the law said that women should be consulted and that there should be women on the committees. As we are going towards the negotiation now, when we started the 1325 thing in Israel, we had the other negotiation, the other turn of negotiation, and then it stopped. Now we have another wave of maybe negotiation going on. So we started writing letters to the Minister of the Prime Minister office and the Foreign Affairs Office. We read in the papers that the Prime Minister put together a team of five guys to lead the negotiation. So we write them a letter. We wrote them a letter and we know that there was some buzz in the ministries and after that they didn't really say that it was because of us, but it so happened that all of a sudden Ms. Tsipi Livny, the minister of join the team. So now we have five men and a woman. Then we read in the papers that they are putting together committees that will follow the work of the negotiation team and they will write background papers. So we wrote them a letter again saying there is a law in Israel and we would like you to answer us. How did you consult women before you form the committees? How many women and which women are going to be there? We sent the letter just two days before we left to the US and I believe we never got an answer. But we are on the case and there will be women this time on the negotiation team.

Thanks, Molly.

Well, just a small addition. We have to remember that the Israeli society is highly militarized and military, not only as an institution, but as an ideology. In such an ideology in society, women will always play the second role, the supportive role. And there is where we are situated. And militarism for find its ultimate expression in war. And therefore women have no place in this game, again only as a supportive role. Therefore, all the efforts of the Israeli women to try to get to decision making position is a long way to make. So the 1325, 1325 UN resolution is indeed a very good international umbrella under which we can lobby to try to bring more women to the decision making. But we have to remember that 1325 was not the beginning of women's work. In a way, the UN Resolution 1325 was a result, if I may say as of acknowledging women's work for peace and bridging for peace for long years before the 1325 UN resolution was issued. So it is, I think it's still we have a long way to go. And we have to remember that within the Israeli case, the social structure, the militarism are very high blocks, which makes our work quite tough. And yet women are in big numbers involved in Israel in peace work.

Modern day conflicts cause more civilian deaths than result, with more civilian deaths than military deaths. Because of the nature of the military equipment that is used. And whether it's Israel, Palestine, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Africa, there were more deaths, civilian deaths in those conflicts. And the first victims will be the women and the children because they are not out or they can, they are. They have to bear the grudge of keeping the families staying the family at the Same time surviving and being defenseless. The women in all situations of conflict have a very difficult role. And they are the ones who can play major roles in sustaining the society. And they do. They are the ones in the absence of men. They are the ones who sustain the families, sustain the societies during the conflict. But also they become politicized. And they do more than their private roles in sustaining families and societies. They also have a say. I think in all conflicts, women have been active in the public and have a say about what is going on in Israel, Palestine, Israeli women and Palestinian women were meeting when it was illegal to meet. And during, before King David, there were Israeli women and Palestinian women meeting. And the road of understanding each other has been a long, torturous road. But nevertheless, under all conditions, the communication never stopped. And that is, there is a lot to be learned from that process and women did it. And I think there is a lot of contribution that women can make to any kind of a process that will be difficult because we have gone through it already with each other, I think 35. And I do want to underscore what Molly said about women. Activism started before 1325. But 1325 gives a framework, it legalizes, it forces, it shames government because they say we respect international conventions. Okay, you know, it's, what are you doing? You have, there are women in your societies who have been active, so where is their role? And I think that gives women the legal framework. They're backing the umbrella to be given a framework for activism in the public sphere for the sake of peace. And as we have seen already, how that is influencing the Israeli public in the Palestinian context. When 1325 came, we went to the President, President Abbas. We have a presidential decree. Is that being translated politically? No, we have a presidential decree. We know that there is a lot of communication with the Israelis now. I don't know of any woman who is participating in that. So we are knocking at the door, who are the women? We want to know who they are. Yes, yes, yes. We want women to be part of the process. So we're pushing, you have middle degree respect. And we expect also that from the outside international community would support Israeli and Palestinian women to be part of the process, to have a consultative status in the process. I don't know if we want to be part of the negotiations, but we do want to be consulting, maybe the third parties, helping to bring the parties together. But we definitely want to have a consultative status in the process. Yes, as iwc, because it is the one framework where women, Israeli women Palestinian women and international women have worked together in developing very clear concepts, understanding and principles what will bring peace to our region. And, and we have great women who are supporting that process too at the international level. And I think we can make a contribution to the process and we're not going to let that go very easily because it's our lives at risk and it's the future of our kids that is at risk. So we can't allow just military games to be played, lives of people. And that's why. But 1325 allows that. That's why it is made a difference.

Thank you. I should just point out that the IWC recently issued a statement on the upcoming negotiations which is on the website and which is also available at the back of the room with other information on the iwc. So now I want to just open it up and see what your questions and comments are.

Yeah, could you use the mic, please?

It would be great if you could also introduce yourselves when you speak.

My name is Jerry Morrison. I'm his wife and I came in late. I apologize. But has there been any reference to the, the One Voice initiative and do you have any connection with that?

Not really.

Not really because one of my, my rabbi and various people I know are talking about it as a groundswell of, you know, civil support for peace negotiations and for peaceful resolution. But my concern about it is that it's all in very, it's. It's very broad terms, but there's nothing specific. So everybody can agree on the broad terms, but as you said, said it's down to the specifics is where things fall apart. So I just personally don't see a whole lot that's going to be able to come from that when it gets down to the real negotiations.

Personally, I don't like the slogan of One Voice. I believe in many voices. If we can quote Mao, let hundred flowers bloom. Because we agree on many things, but we don't speak in the same same voice. We have same. We share ideas, but not one voice. But that's just the slogan. I know that they were supposed to. There was supposed to be a big rally of One Voice and it failed due. They call it security issues. But I think the Israeli public should be educated and taught that it's not enough to speak about peace. They say that all the Israelis want peace. And every day those who go to pray say that let God bring peace on earth. Peace has a price. And the Israelis are not willing to pay the price. Not yet. They are very happy with the situation as it is. We sit on a land which is not ours. There are hundreds of thousands of settlers living on a ground that is not theirs. We are not letting the other people who live next to us to live its own life. And Israelis said, well, that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be. And there will not be peace unless the Israelis will learn that they have to pay the price. It's going to be very painful. Israel is going to have to bring back all those hundreds of thousands of settlers. It's not going to be easy, it's going to be expensive. We will have to deal with the issue of the Palestinians refugees. But without that, peace will not come. And rarely speaking about one voice can hardly do that.

I think, you know, the many voices, and this is one of the many voices, and I think it's more an emotional desire to speak a different language. And I will give that much credit. You know, I think it is, you know, one has to give credit to the people who took the initiative and they have lots of supporters. We realize that's not enough to bring peace. We know that. But I think any kind of effect, attempt by any group that will bring a different voice than subordination of the other or control of the other or the killing or the exclusion of the other is welcome. We need to have that alternative voice. So, you know, if that's. Some people find their way and space in that kind is fine, but other people, people know that more has to be done. And there are many peace groups and you can talk about that.

No, I think there is exactly where the International Women's Commission makes the difference that we do speak in political language. And it is not because we think that everything is only political, but basically because of long years of working together. We know that the dispute is political and therefore should be solved first of all by political means. And there are certain international law and human rights elements that should be taken into consideration in solving this conflict. And yes, after there is a political solution, I think the two societies have a long way to go in order to get to reconciliation. And there, of course, cultural events and all sort of any means that can bring people together are most than welcome. But first, there is a political framework that should be addressed. And this is what the International Women's Commission is trying to lobby for.

Thank you. Yeah.

I hear a lot of nothingness coming from this panel. There's no new ideas being contributed. There's nothing specific being said about solutions. I hear the same discredited left wing sort of Attack Israel, blame Israel. The settlers are the Russians of the problem. The security roads are the root of the problem. Even have somebody here quoting Mao. So, I mean, complete left wing stereotypical, you know, stuff that comes from any part of the left wing. I'm not sure what's particularly feminine about any of the things that you've said so far. I don't see any reason why, you know, I don't see anything representative of any women that are not left wings, you know, parties to the dispute. So I'm looking forward to hearing some specific proposal that's different, that hasn't, you know, because you're women, you have something new to say. I don't hear it.

Yeah, maybe I would like to return that with the question is what is there something that, you know, you have in your mind that is alternative to the nothingness that this panel has presented? I think it's very easy to speak with slogans and denounce and what we're saying is very, very difficult issues. And the difficulty reaches the core. And unless we go and deal with those difficult issues, we will continue thinking that it is impossible to happen. It is not going to happen. And the best thing is not to deal with it that we can. You know, if you are so cynical and some people are and have become, that's an option. But if you want life, you have to deal with it and pay the price for it. And I think the people who on both sides who decide to choose that path are also paying, are willing to take the price and pay the price. And confronting people like yourself who.

Try.

To discredit this kind of work because you don't want to deal with it and avoiding it. Not you personally, but the group who denounce left wing because in Palestine we don't have this left wing thing. I mean, this is a very typical Israeli phenomena where anybody who speaks peace, that means he's left wing. That is a term that still needs to be understood. So I think the Israeli women that I have come to meet have been very brave, have a lot of courage and have taken Dangan a lot of soul searching and thinking. And that for me is much more courageous than sitting in the back room and just saying they are just lefties trying to make peace.

I wonder too, if I could just ask you just if you want to share with us any vision you have for moving forward, because what you said was fairly negative and maybe there's a positive side that we didn't hear.

Sure. You speak of, you know, needing to deal with core issues in Order to make sacrifices for peace. And you alluded to one of them, status of refugees. What is your position on status of refugees? I could propose mine.

I'd like to hear yours propose yours.

None.

No.

And you think.

And you think that's that position of none. You think that's something that could move towards something, Mutual agreement or you don't think mutual agreement is important or.

I would love to see mutual agreement on none. Yes.

First of all, I'm sorry if my remark about Mao offended you. I'm not offended, but I think that what he said about hundred flowers was a nice phrase, although he used it later very poorly. My views about refugees are not really in the iwc. We are not really. We don't share exactly the idea. So those are my ideas about refugees. Okay, I'm not speaking for iwc. As I said before, I believe in rights. I speak the language of rights. And I believe that Israel has the right of all of Israel from the sea to the river. And I have a right to Hebron and I have a right to Bethlehem and I have a right to Jericho. It's in the Bible. I have a right for that. On the same token, the Palestinian has a right to all of Palestine from the river to the sea. They have a right to that. They were born there, they lived there for hundreds of years. So we have two people fighting for the same country and now we have to decide how we are going to deal with it. There was a UN resolution in 1947. Unfortunately, the Palestinian didn't accept it and the war broke in 1948. There were ceasefire lines that the world accepted them. The State of Israel, when it was announced in 48, it was based on their lines of the ceasefire of 1948. And those should be the lines of the state now. There were thousands of refugees that had to leave the State of Israel because of the war, because they were forced to go, because they wanted to go, because their leaders told them to go. For many, many reasons. But they are refugees. They are living somewhere else. There are many Jewish refugees who came to Israel from many countries. From Nazi Europe, from the Gulags of Stalin, from Arab states, from Ethiopia. Israel is full of refugees too. So we have a question of refugees. First of all, Israel have to let the Palestinian people have their own state within the 67 borders, or the 48 borders, depends how you call it. Then Israel has to apologize for the Palestinian, for its part of the Palestinian plight, for the refugee problem. I'm not taking all the blame of me. The world is to Blame. The Palestinians are to blame, the Arab countries are to blame. But Israel also shares some of the blame. And then we shall have to see what are we doing with the right. I have a right to live in Hebron, but I'm not going to exercise it because I want to live next to a Palestinian state. So I'm putting, putting my right on hold and not going to live in Hebron and not going to live in Bethlehem. I'm going to live in the smaller Israel that was left after the 48th war. And I believe that most of the Palestinians, most of the refugees will choose to live in their own Palestinian state that will be formed within those lines. There might be few hundred or thousands or couple of thousands of refugees who left pre Green line Israel and would like to come back. First of all, all the Palestinians, all the refugees will be able to get compensations for all the property that they had to leave behind. On the same token, all those Jews who came from Arab land will have to get compensation for all the properties they had left behind. Think about it. After second World War many of the European Jews got enormous amount of money from Germany, which really helped them start new life in Israel. But the Jews who came, came from Arab countries never got it. So there should be a big change in the Middle east that was going to involve a huge amount of money that will have to be raised all over the world. And there might be few Palestinians who would like to live inside Israel. Although I can't really believe how many would like to think about it, that those who Left Israel in 1948 should be now in the 80s. So would they rather come and live in Israel under Jewish tradition, Jewish state, or wouldn't it be better for them to live in Ramallah or in Jericho or in wherever they would choose to live? It will have to be negotiated, but you cannot say none and open it for negotiation. That's my ideas.

Can you repeat your name please? Michael. Okay. Well Michael, I can almost join and agree with what you have said. Yes, we belong to the Israeli, what is called the left. I want to call it a peace camp. Yes, we don't have among us the right wing women because this is not only women's initiative, it is women's initiative for peace based on certain pillars which we believe are essential for achieving a comprehensive and stable peace in the area now. And yes, we belong to the tiny and the minor group within Israel. Yes, defeated, which is called the peace camp. So you see, I agree with you. But what's next now? But let me tell you something about this, what is called the left. And I'd rather call it peace camp. Okay? And your comment Maha was correct about this is peace camp and not left. Left has some other connotation, at least in the history of the ideology in Europe. A lot of peace activists in Israel are don't necessarily share with me my perception about social justice. You know, I guess when the conflict and the occupation is over, what is called the peace can camp will not stay as one block. I mean, we might find fighting with each other on other issues. Okay, but right now this is what is called the peace camp. And you know what? In certain points we were right. We, I mean the peace camp. Because when I remember as a young activist at the end of 70s when within the peace camp in Israel we had a slogan saying Hakibush Mashhit which means the occupation corrupts, corrupts the occupier. And it was something that most of the people in Israel did not understand. Now, even if the majority will not phrase it in these political terms, almost every Israeli person knows that he pays a price for this adventure called the occupation. You just look at the economic and social situation in Israel. The health system is on the verge of collapse. High school teachers are striking now for the third weak. Not only for the salaries, but for other reasons. The educational system that we were used to be so proud of. There is nothing to be proud of anymore. Look at the number of the youngsters of 18 years old kids who do not go to the army. Now not all of them claim or declare that they refuse to go to the army because of. Because they are conscientious objectors. These are the few, the courageous, who make case out of it. But there is what is called the gray objectors who find all kind of ways to get out of this army service. Why? Because there is growing majority of youngsters within Israel who do not believe that military and the military adventure, if you wish to call it that the Israeli military has been involved in recent years, are essential for the security of Israel. So there are growing numbers within Israel who are concerned. And if what is called, what you call the left, what I call the peace camp was correct along the years was with the analysis that we provided that this adventure started in 67 will not hold no power. And we know this from history, can hold forever oppression and occupation. I don't know if I answered your question, but that was my emotional reaction to what you said.

The whole issue of the phenomena of refugees is not not only a Palestinian Israeli phenomenon. Refugees exist after every conflict Refugees happen. So humanity, or the experience of humanity in dealing with Regis has evolved. And now there are clear institutions with very clear guidelines, with very clear laws how to deal with refugees. There is the High Commissioner for Refugees and, and there is a lot of human experience dealing with issues of refugees. That has happened because that's the only way to secure a sustainable peace. If you do not deal with the core refugees issues, you will always have spoilers, let's say, who will use the anger of this group of people who have been being abandoned to destabilize whatever agreements have. And so it is essential legally, and I'll go back to morally and ethically, legally and for the sake of sustainable peace to deal with the issues of refugees, refugees universally. There are individual rights and there are collective rights and none of these must be compromised. Both have to be addressed. I'm a daughter of a refugee family. I consider myself a refugee. I might not want to go back to my parents home in West Jerusalem, but I sure want first apology and second, definitely I want to choose a compensation. And I think every refugee in the world will say the same thing. So this is an individual choice. The individual rights to be compensated is an individual choice. The collective rights. Israel has a lot of experience dealing with the collective rights of the Jews who have become refugees from Europe. So I think the same thing should happen to the Palestinian refugees. And if this issue is not addressed thoroughly and carefully and sensitively, we won't have any real peace in the region.

I just want to add one maybe American kind of comment because of course we also have in this country so much of a discussion now about security and the use of force. And I think it is much more practical and useful not to think of this so much as right, left in a political framework, but as kind of force negotiation as two different routes to try to achieve security. And I think, I mean, my sense is that a lot of force in this conflict has been used. And my sense is that people don't feel very secure. That's not been an effective way to go. And I think we really have a very principled commitment to negotiated agreements. And we can't sit here and say we know what exactly the answer is going to be on refugees because it has to be a negotiated agreement. So it has to be something that everybody can live with. And I think it's pretty clear that what you're proposing is not something that everyone can live with. So by definition, almost that's not a starting point, it's an ending point. It's like a Dead end. And it comes back to a question of force and negotiation. And we strongly support negotiation. And I think that's what we're hoping that this process will now reignite as an effective negotiation that will deal with these issues. They're very difficult.

First, I would like to thank Nava for being open and stating her point of view. I did not expect a solution coming here, but I did expect to hear the different voices of the panel. It didn't much happen, but I am aiming for a more modest direction. I agree with what Maha said that civilians, not only politicians, should be involved in the negotiation. And with that respect, it's very important. Part of civilian involvement is about education, educating the people. And with respect to education, of course, women have a lot to do and are able to do. And I would like to ask specific questions. I vividly remember some years ago, after a suicide bomber terrorist blew himself in Tel Aviv, his mother came out on the television and said, my son is a Shaheed and I will bring up my two other sons to do the same. Nothing against it was heard from the Palestinian side, even in Israel. What I remember heard was, were politicians. Maybe one woman that is actively. But I'm not sure I. I don't want to mention her name because I'm not sure there was really nothingness from the Palestinian side. And I believe that if Israel was described here as a militarized society, one should say for the same token that maybe the Palestinian society is kind of terrorized society, but not in the usual sense of terror, terrorized, of being terrorized, but being supportive of terrorism. And I think women can do a lot against it.

I think if this happens, and I hope it doesn't happen again, you will find that nobody in the Palestinian society will say anything. And there is nothing to say. Any mother that comes out saying this, you know, this is pathological. We have done study of mothers who have lost spouses, children and documented their stories and the various stories. And I hope this book will be published in English, will be translated. Because it's after the initial shock and the having to perform and the immediate reaction, after all of that, they have to face the loss of their child. That's when the pain. And nobody feels that or sees that what is captured by the media is that initial. Shock that expresses itself in all various ways. And unfortunately, that's what stands out. But nobody sees what happens the day after or three days after, and the pain and the suffering and the questioning of all mothers. Why did he choose that path? Where did I fail? And I think it's very dangerous to label a whole society as wanting to be suicidal. And it's basically labeling a whole society. And that's a very dangerous territory to go into. I think things are not so black and white. Things are various shades. And I'm a mother and I know of many mothers, and there is no pain comparable to the pain of a mother losing a child under any circumstances. And don't be misled on what you see on the television. And that goes across national boundaries, countries, races, religions. So let's not. Let's go deeper into that phenomena and not just simplify it. And because it's a very complex thing, it's social, it's patriarchy, it's going to give you a whole feminine analysis why this takes place at that moment. But that's another subject. So.

Bing, I just want to remind that there was a case, an exceptional case, of an Israeli soldier who shot Arabs inside Israel. Not only it was criticized by the whole Israeli public in Sharaam, but also his parents were, first of all, apologetic. And second, they blamed the army because they said for months they told the army, the military, don't give our child arms, don't give him a rifle. And they didn't listen to him. So this was a completely opposite, different reaction.

Excuse me, what is your name?

Yechiel.

Yechiel, I want to give you, to continue what Ma has said and from a different point of view, an Israeli point of view, something that's different from what maybe you. I'm sure you remember just during the war, the 48 war. I wouldn't call it the War of Independence, because some of us call it the Nakba, but let's call it in a neutral name, the war of 48. There was a book published after the war. It was the. By Rivka Gover. Do you remember the name? There was an Israeli mother that during the war, her firstborn son was killed in the war. And she told her second son, she had two sons and a daughter. She told her second son, now you should go to the war and continue what your brother has started. And sure enough, few weeks later, he died too. He was killed too. And Ben Gurion, who is the mythological father of the nation, made her a heroine of the Israeli people. She published a book. They called her. They called the book the Book of the Sons. It was translated to all the languages of the world in my archives. I have it in Japanese. They called her the Mother of the Sons. We were taught. Her story was taught in our schools. Amos is nodding. It was taught in our school. That was the model. A Hebrew mother should raise her sons, send them to war to fight and die for the motherland. Isn't that the same?

No. If he went going against a military post, that might have been. If he's going in a restaurant killing children and women, no, his mother should have made the differentiation.

As you remember, the Palestinians are not allowed to have an army, and they don't have tanks. They cannot fight as an army against a soldier.

Okay, I'm just gonna go into that. Yeah. Because we're running out of time. I just want to give one more speaker a chance to participate, and then we'll have to wrap it up.

My name is Amos Noor. I'm at Stanford, but I'm from Israel originally. I want to tell you what you're doing is great. And for an added reason that you haven't mentioned, that is my view, for a very pragmatic reason. This kind of conflict between two nations or national groups can be resolved eventually in history. Only two ways that one will overwhelm the other or that they'll find a settlement. And history is just basically a list of these kind of outcomes. If there are forces in the Middle east that want to overwhelm the other side, there are forces in Israel that hope somehow maybe to overwhelm the Palestinians. And unfortunately, that would also mean overwhelm some parts of the Arab world. And there are clearly forces in the Arab world among Palestinians that say, let's overwhelm Israel, throw it to the sea, and so on. Because neither side is very strong. And it's not going to be very strong for a long time to come. Come. This kind of resolution, if you want to call it, is impossible. It will just be an infinite conflict into the future. So the only alternative is to find a way to settle it. So it's pragmatic. It's not just a moral issue. It's not just an ethical issue. It's a pragmatic issue. The longer this goes on, the more kids will be killed on both sides, the more suffering. And it will resolve nothing. It will continue itself. And so what they are doing is great. It's not left or right. It's not suicide bombing. It's not fanaticism. They exist on both sides. We have to overcome it. Because the alternative is there's no solution at all. So I like very much what you're doing.

Thank you.

I think that's a wonderful point to end on. I was going to say, as someone who has really watched and been part of A lot of these discussions, it really, you know, I listened to the panelists, and I feel like there's. I can't say they're speaking in one voice after all the discussion about that. So it is many different voices, but it's really one message. And I think it's been so hard over the years to get there. And it continues to be a challenge. And it's, you know, it's a very courageous thing, I think, on both sides for Israeli and Palestinian women to rise to that challenge. So it's a great privilege for me to be part of this effort. I think it is the greatest chance we have to succeed. And I think that this is not just a Palestinian, Israeli conflict. It's a conflict that is not only regional, but really global, implications for all of us and affects all of us every day. So I want to thank you and Google for this opportunity to have a discussion and for your frank comments and thoughts. And I think that what we can do here that's so important, especially right now, is really try to promote discussion like this, because this is a time where there may be a closing window of opportunity, and I shudder to think what happens, you know, if it closes. So, again, thank you for coming. Special thanks to our panelists for coming literally across the world, literally yesterday, to be here with us. And let's keep the discussion going. Thank you.