Palestine Activity Reflection
The Palestinians and Israelis have always had issues regarding Palestine. Both groups feel like they have the right to take ownership over Palestine because of past ruling and leadership. In class we had to try to work out a solution to this issue. Two of the things that we had to sort out were if there was going to be two separate countries or one, and how Jerusalem will be ruled. We discussed both of these issues in depth because this conflict has been ongoing. It is preventing both the Palestinians and Israelis from moving forward as countries and needs to be resolved. I was a delegate from Palestine in the activity but I would have preferred a different role. Personally, I would have liked to be in the U.N. group because it was hard for me to speak for the Palestinians and what they would want because I am not Palestinian. I also am more of a peacemaker and I would have liked to come up with more of a solution with less of a “take all for Palestine” attitude in the same group part of the activity. Our mixed group was fairly laid back making it pretty easy to make decisions. Each representative from the alike groups presented their ideas and then we discussed them, which ran really smoothly. Everyone listened well and took it seriously, which was another positive. The only hard part about it was collaborating with so many people because at times we could not hear each other or had trouble getting ideas across. Our group decided to split the Israelis and Palestinians because of their long history of disagreements and conflict. At first our group was partially divided because some of us had a more fair idea of splitting Palestine into countries and then others wanted to take all they could for Palestine and not hold back. Eventually our group, the Palestinians, decided to divide Palestine into northern and southern halves, with the Palestinians on the top half and Israelis in the southern half. The borderline is directly through Jerusalem and is on a negative slope. We did so because we thought that it would allow both groups to have equal sea access, fertile land and major cities. These resources would allow for growth in trade, agriculture, fishing, and industry. The government for both countries would be a democratic republic to allow the citizens to vote and have a say in the decisions their government makes. We decided to have no military limit as long as neither side has an overwhelming amount more then the other. If this happened we decided we would have the U.N. step in. This would be an advantage to us (Palestinians) because the Israeli military is very powerful and is better than ours; it would be like a buffer for us because the U.N. wouldn’t let it become too big or powerful. I think that this was a fairly good plan because it allows both countries to grow in industry and gives them both similar lands. Our combined group went with a different solution having Palestine split up in to four quarters with the center being Jerusalem. Both countries would receive equal arable land and sea access, with each country alternating in the quarters and major cities. Once again this would allow for growth in agriculture, fishing and industry in the cities. The government here would also be a democratic republic. If there were restrictions on the military, they would be equal, set by the U.N. Both plans are very similar, except in the boundaries. I think that this solution is also pretty good but I see the four quarters being an issue. It is difficult because this really splits up the countries. However, it could also be positive because it would be hard to fight a two front war, so this weakens both countries quite a bit. I