Spring Break
Students, faculty react to Md. peace talks
Issue date: 12/6/07
- Page 1 of 4 next >
If last week's Middle East peace conference in Annapolis proved anything, it's that Israel and Palestine are like a divorced couple living in the same house.
That's what Steven David, director of the International Studies program at Hopkins, said at a talk on the conference Monday night.
His was just one of the many opinions held by Hopkins faculty, students and national experts about the conference, held at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. last week.
According to James Lindsay, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, there is at least one consensus view regarding the conference: Many are relieved to see the process rebooted after such a long interruption.
In a series of meetings on Nov. 27, President Bush began talks with Palestinian and Israeli leaders for the establishment of a peace settlement; the talks were between Bush, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
On the Homewood campus, students gathered to hear International Studies program director Steven David give a talk about the Annapolis peace conference. He briefly described the history of tension between the two groups in addition his elaboration of the issues at stake addressed at the peace conference.
David opened the discussion saying, "The first thing we have to do is recognize that there is a right and a wrong on both sides, so essentially we're looking at right versus right."
He described the sense of loss that the Palestinians have felt and their want for their own country, while Israel has strong religious ties, and as the only Jewish state, is "central to Jewish identity."
The two sides of the conflict have caused the two societies to grow in parallel without much interaction but with much tension. The general public reaction has been that the conference achieved what it set out to do, although its initial goal may have been small scale to begin with.
"It was successful within the modest limits that were set for it - it didn't achieve much, but it didn't set out to achieve much," David said. "It jumpstarted a process that had been moribund, and it's a real test of whether that process takes off as there are still major problems with terrorism, the future of Jerusalem and other major problems that have not been addressed."
That's what Steven David, director of the International Studies program at Hopkins, said at a talk on the conference Monday night.
His was just one of the many opinions held by Hopkins faculty, students and national experts about the conference, held at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. last week.
According to James Lindsay, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, there is at least one consensus view regarding the conference: Many are relieved to see the process rebooted after such a long interruption.
In a series of meetings on Nov. 27, President Bush began talks with Palestinian and Israeli leaders for the establishment of a peace settlement; the talks were between Bush, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
On the Homewood campus, students gathered to hear International Studies program director Steven David give a talk about the Annapolis peace conference. He briefly described the history of tension between the two groups in addition his elaboration of the issues at stake addressed at the peace conference.
David opened the discussion saying, "The first thing we have to do is recognize that there is a right and a wrong on both sides, so essentially we're looking at right versus right."
He described the sense of loss that the Palestinians have felt and their want for their own country, while Israel has strong religious ties, and as the only Jewish state, is "central to Jewish identity."
The two sides of the conflict have caused the two societies to grow in parallel without much interaction but with much tension. The general public reaction has been that the conference achieved what it set out to do, although its initial goal may have been small scale to begin with.
"It was successful within the modest limits that were set for it - it didn't achieve much, but it didn't set out to achieve much," David said. "It jumpstarted a process that had been moribund, and it's a real test of whether that process takes off as there are still major problems with terrorism, the future of Jerusalem and other major problems that have not been addressed."
Be the first to comment on this story