Click here to see a slideshow of Elham’s trip.

On our last day in Israel, my group… Click here to see a slideshow of Elham’s trip.

On our last day in Israel, my group and I met with Ido Aharoni, Israel’s assistant foreign minister and brand team manager.

Aharoni discussed the importance of creating a positive image for the state of Israel. It was vital, he said, for Israel to “rebrand” itself so that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has plagued its image for decades, is no longer in the foreground. Aharoni went on to compare the effects of the movie “Borat” to Israel’s dilemma. The movie branded Kazakhstan a backwards country. In failing to define their own brand identity, he said, Israelis have allowed the Palestinians to do it for them, much like the Kazakhs have allowed Borat to do it for them.

“Israel is being ‘Boratized’ by the Palestinians,” Aharoni said.

In a way, Aharoni’s speech was the perfect way to end our trip. After having been immersed in the beauty of Israeli society and culture for the past week, it was obvious to us that the country is not war-torn, like its image suggests.

But Aharoni’s argument failed to take into consideration the complexity of the conflict. The truth is that within the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are actually three very unique sides: the Israelis, the Arab-Israelis and the Palestinians.

Meeting with many Israelis during my trip – from diplomats to journalists, IDF soldiers to students – I was fascinated by the incredible sense of national identity which bounded these ethnically diverse people together.

Diversity is also apparent in opinions regarding the conflict. From orthodox Jews who believe the state of Israel should include the West Bank and Gaza Strip to moderates who accept and hope for the two-state solution, to those who easily choose not to think about the conflict. Indeed, many Israelis we talked to throughout our trip professed that they were not political. They followed the news, but did not allow it to dominate their lives.

But after spending two peaceful days in Jerusalem, we visited Sderot, a city in the South district of Israel that is frequently hit with missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza. I was almost surprised to see bomb shelters line the streets and protective, concrete rooftops shielding many buildings.

For Israelis in Sderot, the conflict cannot possibly be pushed into the background. Arab-Israelis, Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population. For Arab-Israelis, the conflict is relevant because it is the root of their troubles in trying to assimilate into Israel.

During our trip, we met with Hanna Swaid, an Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli Parliament, who told us that many laws in the Knesset are discriminatory in language and policy and leave Arabs in the cold.

According to Swaid, Arabs face inequity in numerous aspects of life, including land and housing policies, access to education and state funding of Arab towns and villages. These policies, Swaid said, as well as the rise of anti-Arab sentiment among Israelis, give Arabs the impression that they don’t belong, that they are outsiders in their own country.

This feeling of alienation became evident to us when we visited the city of Beersheba in southern Israel. While there, we spoke to an Arab-Israeli student at Ben Gurion University who told us she was firmly against the two-state solution and that she supported Hamas for standing up for the Palestinians. Her words were a clear indication that if Israel does not accept its Arab citizens, there is no guarantee that its Arab citizens will accept Israel.

For the Palestinians, the conflict is a lasting presence in everyday life. It is evident in the growing number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and in the “security fence” that prevents terrorism but breaks apart their communities and restricts their resources.

Furthermore, the conflict is significant for Palestinians because it is a part of their continuous struggle to achieve a Palestinian state. If the conflict somehow faded into the background, the possibility of a Palestinian state could as well.

On our visit to Sderot, my group and I were given a tour of the Gaza border by the city police chief. As we looked on at Gaza’s buildings and houses, minuscule shadows from where we were standing, the police chief said, “We could simply cut off their electricity and fuel in response to the missile attacks, but we don’t.”

“But we don’t,” he had said, with an air of great generosity. He pointed to Gaza at nowhere in particular and it was suddenly impossible to imagine that people lived there. Seen through the actions of suicide bombers and militants, Palestinians are so easily dehumanized in Israel.

Recently, however, Israel closed its borders with the Gaza Strip, tightly restricting the amount of fuel, medical supplies and food that reaches Gaza residents.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, according to The New York Times, “As far as I’m concerned, the residents of Gaza can walk if they don’t have petrol for their cars, because they have a murderous terrorist regime that won’t let people in the south of Israel live in safety.”

Olmert’s comments are a worrying sign that this conflict may never come to an end. For each side, to be fresh out of November’s Annapolis Peace Conference, it is upsetting to see that somewhere down the road, diplomacy was lost. The conflict has, once again, fallen into the usual pattern we’ve all sadly come to know and recognize – a never-ending cycle in which violence breeds more violence, and misunderstanding and hatred get in the way of finding a peaceful solution.

And so, if Israel – a country that has been shaped and continues to be shaped by this conflict – wants to rebrand itself, perhaps it can only do so within the context of the conflict. This means addressing the concerns of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis and instilling a certain level of trust with a people who feel they are being neglected.

E-mail Elham at [email protected].