In this weekly podcast, WTV Staff Reporter Parker Butler provides his takes on politics. This week he discusses President Trump’s decision this week to recognize the city of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel with junior Dena Assad, who is of Palestinian descent, and sophomore Roy Nitzan, who is of Jewish and Israeli descent. 

Hi everyone, my name is Parker Butler, and this is Politics with Parker Season 2, Episode 15. In this weekly series, I break down the latest political news, and offer some commentary how to get people—especially young people—engaged in politics and energized about the issues that we as a generation are going to inherit.

This week will be a bit different, and the focus is on President Trump’s decision this week to recognize the city of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, which was a major decision in regards to longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is known as the world’s most intractable conflict.

I discussed this issue with two students here at Liberty who have a personal connection to the topic at hand. But first, a bit of background. Jerusalem, which is a historically and religiously significant city is claimed by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The United States, despite being closely allied with Israel has often acted as a moderator between the two opposing sides. However, this decision of course heavily favored Israel and led to widespread backlash from the Arab World and praise from the Israeli government. There are Palestinian and Israeli people around the world and for many of them, and of course for those in the Israeli-Palestinian region, this is a deeply personal issue that relates to their ancestors, their family, and their people. Here at Liberty we have a widely diverse student body, and this week I sat down with two students—one of them being Dena Assad, who is of Palestinian descent, and the other being Roy Nitzan, who is of Jewish and Israeli descent. I asked them about this decision by President Trump in particular, and also about the historical conflict as a whole and what their thoughts are on the future of the region.

Parker: “So, Dena, you are of Palestinian descent.”

Dena: “Yes.”

Parker: “Do you—can you just tell us a little bit about yourself and how this issue relates to you, and sort of what your—how your opinions developed with regards to this issue?”

Dena: “Well, my parents are from Burka, Palestine, or like Palestine. No one really knows where that is, so I just say Jerusalem. And I mean I still have family that lives there and I go there — I’ve only been there once because it’s like, you know, it’s kind of not the safest to go. And yeah it’s just like who I am as a person.”

Parker: “Alright. And Roy, you are Jewish. Can you tell us just a little bit about how this issue relates to you and how you being Jewish affects your view of the issue?”

Roy: “So it’s not necessarily just me being Jewish, it’s also that I’m Israeli and my parents are both Israeli and my entire family is Israeli. They come from Israel, they’ve lived in Israel, they were born there. And you know, Jerusalem is a place for, it’s like a special place, but I haven’t been there in a few years just because it’s not the safest place for us to go. And like it’s a very important place considering that we do bar mitzvahs there, we go to pray over there, and it’s you know a big city for us.”

Parker: “So, question for Roy: What do you see as the end goal of this issue? In other words, do you see a beneficial purpose to this decision by the President?”

Roy: “Well, I think that the purpose of it was to sort of bring peace because for seventy years Israel has tried to work with the United States, and with all the other countries surrounding Israel, for peace and that just hasn’t happened, so I think that Trump’s decision to try something else and recognize that the capital is Jerusalem and moving the U.S. Embassy could potentially bring peace throughout the Middle East.”

Parker: “And Dena, do you see Israel, just in your own opinion, as a legitimate political entity?”

Dena: “Yes and no. I say no because I’m bitter because I’m Palestinian so I don’t  want to recognize Israel as a country, but politically I understand that they are a nation so I have to respect that.”

Parker: “Same question for you Roy, do you see Palestine as a legitimate political state?”

Roy: “I do believe that Palestine, and not—and not just Palestine, but like all of the Arab countries around Israel are legitimate political states. But they aren’t necessarily willing to work with Israel’s government for peace.”

Parker: “So immediately after this decision, at least eight countries including Egypt, the United Kingdom, France–they all called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, amid worries of violence and and other types of disruptions. So another question for you Roy, do you see this sort of as an abrupt move and with regards to what President did? And do you see it endangering global political stability?”

Roy: “Well, yes, it’s abrupt but I do think it was needed, because as I said, we’ve been trying for seventy years, and probably even more, for peace and that just hasn’t happened. We’ve been using the same formula over and over and over again and it’s just not working so he put his foot down and was like “we’ve got to change it up”, so he did and I think it could work. The safety–it could be dangerous not only for Israel but the United States as well. There have been several wars in Israel, not lately and a while ago and this could bring up some more.”

Parker: “So, you see it sort of as a risk but it kind of had to be done?”

Roy: “Yeah, yeah.”

Parker: “Okay. And so after this decision there have been major protests. There are expected that there more to come. So, Dena, do you think that this tactic of protest–some have been violent, some have been non-violent–but as a whole do you think that protest with regards to this issue is a positive way to bring about change, and do you think that there’s anything else that can be done by the Palestinian people or that should be done?”

Dena: “So, protests like violent protests isn’t necessarily a good way to get your point across, because you are endangering other people’s safety, and if you want peace you cannot achieve peace through violence. But, the  Palestinian people are very restricted and they haven’t gotten a lot of rights, in my opinion, so in order for them to show and represent how they feel on the issues, protests is the only way to get it. I don’t think they should do it violently, but protest is legitimate.”

Parker: “Okay. And a lot of people have criticized President Trump’s decision not necessarily for the decision itself but that it was political in nature and that it was rather than serving a diplomatic means it was intended to sort of appeal to his base–appeal to evangelicals voters who, of course, recognize Israel and support Israel. So, Roy, do you think that–that this was a positive move on the part of President Trump and do you believe that he intends to do so with with the intention of supporting the Jewish people and the Israeli people, or is it more of just like a political move to support his evangelical Christian base?”

Roy: “I think that it was intended to help the Israeli people, because he is very supportive of Israel and a lot of the Israeli people are very supportive of him. So I do think it was with intent to support them.”

Parker: “Okay. So, a big thing with this is that the Palestinian people say this is going to lead to more violence, it’s going to lead to less of a chance of peace, whereas Israelis say that this is something that had to be done. It was a risk? Yes. Will it lead to protest? Of course. But this has been, as you said, it’s been seventy years, and this has been done over and over again and something had to be done. So, Dena, do you think that there is something that the Israeli people can do as sort of a reasonable move that strikes at a compromise? And that—do you think that–obviously I’m sure you don’t agree with decision–but do you think that there is a different way that President Trump could have acted that would find a better compromise for both groups?”

Dena: “Well I don’t think–what makes me mad is I don’t think Trump has–he doesn’t–he shouldn’t have any factor on the matter. It has nothing to do with him. He’s not–he’s the president the United States, so why is he getting involved in this issue, and saying what he believes should be the capital, and recognizing something as a capital? He has no place in that matter. I don’t think that making Jerusalem the capital of Israel is going to achieve peace. I think there’s going to be more violence. I feel like if the Israelis want to achieve peace and the United States wants to achieve peace with the Israelis and Palestinians, I think they should share the capital like how it pretty much was before. Because, yes, people like don’t like sharing, but by if one person is going to take one thing, the other person’s going to be angry about it. So you’re not going to achieve peace that way.”

Parker: “Okay. Roy, do you agree? Or what alternative do you see?”

Roy: “Well, a lot of the issue was that Israel wasn’t seen as a state or as a legitimate country, and all my life I’ve been told they’ve been trying to take Israel back. They said it’s not ours, just stuff like that. And so a certain extent I do agree with–if one person is going to take something, the other person’s going to be mad, but, yeah it could be shared, but there have been attempts and they just haven’t worked out. And originally it was Israel’s, so, you know.”

Parker: “And that sort of leads to really the end goal with this, which is a two-state solution. And just, first of all, do you guys–do either of you disagree with a two-state solution? Do you think that is–obviously it’s not easy to achieve but, idealistically, do you agree with that concept?”

Dena: “How I see it is the Palestinians have over and over again have been restricted, and more of their rights have been taken away, and more of their land. So I see–they promised to share. But in the end that doesn’t happen because more is being taken away and I feel like with them saying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is just taking more away from the Palestinians. And that’s just going to cause more conflict.”

Parker: “But you do think that there needs to be a two state solution in the end at some point?”

Dena: “In the end, if they’re–at some point, yes, that’s only–because obviously the Palestinians are not going to give it up and the Israelis are not going to give it up, so they have to find a way to share it and stick to it because they promised to share it, but that always doesn’t happen.”

Parker: “And Roy do you agree with a two-state solution?”

Roy: “I do agree with the two-state solution. How much it has worked, I don’t know, just because, you know, there’s constantly saying, “Oh, we’ll work with you”, but then it doesn’t happen. And I’m not just saying that from a standpoint of being Israeli, going against Palestinians, but it’s also the other way around. It’s just–I don’t think either of the two countries like it.”

Parker: “So I think a lot of this comes down to, just how I’ve seen it, is a historical issue. You know, a lot of times, as with this interview, when you talk with Palestinians and Israelis, they’ll often cite history, and say that, well, you know they haven’t wanted to find a compromise or they haven’t either. Do you see an issue with the leadership? So, with Palestine, obviously regards to the West Bank it’s led by Hamas. And with regards to Israel you’ve got President Netanyahu. (CORRECTION: Prime Minister, not President). Do you think that there needs to be a change in leadership that is more open to diplomatic means? And do you think that [this] leadership has led to a lot of the violence that we see today?”

Dena: “I feel like, Palestine, they’re not really given any choice when it comes to being involved in politics. Their president was killed, so they kind of–since then, they kind of like don’t know what to do. They don’t have anyone to lead them politically. I feel like if we do–to fulfill the two-state plan and to make more diplomacy between the two countries, they do need to have a legitimate government and someone to represent them on the U.N., because they are just observers. And if you want to fulfill the two state plan you have to recognize them both as countries, and you have to give both of them representatives.”

Parker: “Alright, and then Roy, do you think Netanyahu, or anyone within the Israeli leadership, is responsible–or not even responsible, but just has contributed to sort of the violence that we’ve seen, or just the contention? And do you think that a change in leadership is necessary?”

Roy: “Change in leadership, possibly. Just because Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he’s going to do a lot of things, but he hasn’t actually put action towards what he said. So I think that could contribute to some violence–in the past we had Yitzhak Rabin, and we were actually really close to a peace agreement, and then he was murdered. And then it just went downhill from there. And it might just be the leadership, like as we’ve seen in the past with some leaderships have gotten close to it. Netanyahu right now, he’s not close to it.”

Parker: “Well I think that concludes our interview. I just I just want to say I think it’s great that people who have such differing views and come from such differing, you know, lineages can at least find some kind of way to have a dialogue on an issue that’s really controversial So I just want to thank you guys for, you know, giving us your opinions, and for having your voice heard. So thank you so much.”

Often times when foreign policy issues like this are discussed, it’s common for the personal intricacies of the people being affected to get forgotten, and I think to reach a solution—as seemingly impossible as it may seem today—you have got to have a worthwhile discussion with important questions that need to be answered. I’m glad I was able to do that with Dena and Roy, and I hope that we set an example for world leaders on all sides who have become so entrenched in their power and animosity that they can’t even manage a genuine discussion with the other side.  

At the end of the day, you can’t have peace without dialogue and respect, no matter how harmful you may see your opponents as, it’s vital to recognize the common humanity in one another, and regardless of your opinion of Trump’s decision, I really hope that that is the key takeaway from this week.

That’s all I’ve got for this week, my name is Parker Butler and thank you for listening.

Correction: This story was updated on Dec. 12 to remove duplicated information in one of the captions.