Monday marked the  anniversary of the Nov. 29, 1947 adoption of the UN resolution which attempted to establish Arab and Jewish states in the Palestine region. Sixty-three years later, peace is sought, but many have little optimism that efforts will succeed. In the years since the resolution, much has changed in regards to the Palestinian national movement, and all efforts to being peace to the region seem to be at a standstill.

Brown

Carnegie scholar Dr. Nathan J. Brown spoke at Henry Ford Community College on Wednesday this week, attempting to shed light on events in the area, and provide some understanding as to the struggle in the region, particularly within the Palestinian Authority itself, with his lecture “Islam, Nationalism and Palestine.” The event was sponsored by the Arab Cultural Studies Program at HFCC.

“You see from headlines people fighting one day, fighting the next day and so on and it looks like a watershed of hatred and passionate murder, but I don’t think that is what is going on. I try to explain why people do what they do,” said Brown.

The lecture, which was held in the Reuther building at 8 p.m., explained the history of the two parties who are currently contending to be representatives of the Palestinian people, Fatah and Hamas; Fatah having their beginning as part of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Hamas emerging from the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Fighting nationalism versus religion is what many think is happening, but no one is really arguing separation of religion and state,” said Brown in his lecture. “The real issue is over power. There are essentially two Palestinian powers. Hamas says ‘We won the election. We are the Palestinian Authority.’ Fatah says ‘No, we are.’ Palestine is being spilt.”

This spilt of power is what Brown focused on, and he says this is why peace cannot be attained.

“Focus on putting the Palestinian government back together again, then focus on a solution between Israel and Palestine.” He said trying to have peace talks with two Palestinian Authorities is not going to solve anything.

Although many were pleased with the lecture and the viewpoint of the political scientist, some felt Dr. Brown missed issues of real concern. Brown steered clear of Israel’s involvement in the conflict, even when questioned by the audience, in reference to its support of the Fatah-Hamas conflict, only speaking of them briefly.

“I think he missed some key issues. His lecture was geared more towards history, but not taking a lot of elements into consideration,” said Shereen Nawash, of the Palestine Office in Michigan. “The role of the U.S., Israel, and the economy, to be specific.”

“(Israel) wants Hamas in the forefront, creating conflict with Fatah, to legitimize their (military) actions.”

Brown said Israel is supporting the conflict, but that Israel will suffer from the spilt in the Palestinian government.

“Yes, (Israel) benefits right now, but even the health of the Israeli state depends on a solution,” Brown said. “But they can’t (come to an agreement) without someone to talk to.”

He also felt it was necessary to steer clear of the United States’ position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, saying he does not know much about the State Department, but acknowledging the bias.

“If at all, a two-state solution would be best,” Brown said when asked about how to reach an agrrement. “But Israel is deeply entrenched and Palestine unable, and only half-willing.” Like many, Brown is pessimistic, looking and hoping for a solution, but seeing only one way that it can be attained.

“The Palestinian government needs to be rebuilt before anything else can be done.”