Israel,
the Arab states, and
the Palestinians
notes by Denis Bašić based on
Chapter 14 & partially 15 in James Gelvin’s “The Modern Middle East”
as well as on other sources as indicated
n
n
n
n
n
n
Recognition & Refugees
The two main unresolved issues that have remained after the 1948 IsraeliArab war and subsequent wars are the issue of the recognition of the State of
Israel and the question of the Palestinian refugees.
Although the state of Israel is recognized by the majority of the countries,
the only Arab nations that have recognized Israel so far are Egypt(1979),
Jordan (1994), and Mauritania (1999.) Since 2009 Mauritania has reversed
its diplomatic recognition of Israel.
The question of refugees remain unresolved. The statistics as to their
numbers differ depending on the sources.
The UN Conciliation Commission estimated that by 1949 over 720,000
Palestinians had fled their homes.
By 1950 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) raised
the estimate of refugees who were unable to return and who had fled to
either the West Bank, Gaza Strip or other countries to over 914,000.
The UNRWA reports that the Palestinian refugee population has raised
from 914,000 to 4.4 million between 1950 and 2005.
The Arab League
1. Egypt (1945)
2. Iraq (1945)
3. Jordan (1945)
4. Lebanon (1945)
5. Saudi Arabia (1945)
11. Tunisia (1958)
12. Kuwait (1961)
13. Algeria (1962)
14. Bahrain (1971)
15. U.A.E. (1971)
6. Syria (1945)
7. Yemen (1945)
8. Libya (1953)
9. Sudan (1956)
10. Morocco (1958)
16. Oman (1971)
17. Qatar (1971)
18. Mauritania (1973)
19. Somalia (1974)
20. Palestine (1976)
21. Djibouti (1977)
22. Comoros (1993)
See: Israel-Palestine: Population statistics
Israel’s resources in the post-WWII period
n
Israel’s resources (rent) in the post-WWII period were
n
1. from Jews from around the globe,
n
n
n
n
2. reparations from the German government for the Holocaust ($95
billions from 1952-2007),
3. foreign aid from France and later from the U.S.
As to the foreign U.S. aid to Israel, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian
sources give slightly different, but still large numbers :
a) According to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE),
the U.S. loans and grants to Israel from 1949-2014 amount to
approximately $120 billion.
b) According to the Washington Report on Middle East Afairs
(WRMEA), the benefits of the U.S. aid to Israel from 1949-2012
amount to more than $130 billion.
More information on the cost of Israel to the US tax payers.
Israel’s demographic changes
n
n
n
n
n
n
The so-called “aristocracy of Israeli society” - the settlers of the first
(1904-1914) and second (1918-1923) migrations - established the
political and economic institutions as soon as they arrived to Palestine,
i.e. before WWII.
These institutions helped the establishment of the state of Israel in
1948.
The 1948 war created the first big demographic change. 720,000
Palestinians left their homes in modern day Israel.
From 1948-1952 some 700,000 new Jewish immigrants arrived to
Israel.
From 1952-1967 another wave of 700,000 Jewish immigrants came to
Israel.
A large number of the new immigrants came from the Moslem
countries that became increasingly intolerant to their Jews in response
to the calamity of the Palestinians during the 1948 war.
Israel’s demographic changes (cont.)
n
Some Arab Jews immigrated to Israel at the urging of Zionists.
Others came, because they were persecuted at home.
n
For instance, in 1947, Iraqi government imposed discriminatory
legislation against the Jews limiting their freedom of movement and
required them to put up bonds if they wanted to leave Iraq. As the
systematic discrimination continued, some 120,000 Iraqi Jews
emigrated to Israel.
n
By WWI, Jews made about 40% of Baghdad’s population (80,000
out of 202,000. See Nissim Rejwan, The Last Jews in Baghdad,
intro & Ch 1)
n
31,000 Jews emigrated from Libya.
n
40,000 from Yemen.
n
80,000 from Egypt.
n
10,000 from Syria, etc.
Israeli-Egyptian relations
n
Occupied with consolidating his power in Egypt after the 1952 Free
Officer revolt, Egyptian President Gamal Naser paid more attention to
Israel only after the bloody border incident of 1955 and the 1956
“Tripartite Aggression” or Suez Crisis.
n
Naser increasingly saw the West in conspiratorial terms - a vision that
was not far from the truth, according to many historians. He sought the
unity of the Arab world against this conspiracy and viewed Israel as a
“dagger aimed at the heart of the Arab nation.”
n
By the early 1960’s the Syrians were involved in escalating battles with
the Israelis over the allocation of Jordan river water. In the spring of
1967, in solidarity with the Syrians, Naser ordered the Israeli entrance to
the Red Sea (Straits of Tiran) closed to Israeli shipping.
n
The Israeli Red Sea port Eilat was practically closed. Since Israel (and
the U.S.) considered the Straits an international waterway, the Israelis
viewed the Egyptian action as an act of war.
n
On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive attack against Egypt.
The 1967 War
n
The 1967 war or the Six day war - After a period of high tension between Israel
and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air
strikes during the Friday prayer against Arab forces. The war resulted in a
disastrous defeat of the Arab armies - the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi
one.
n
The Israeli army captured all of Jerusalem (which had been divided between
Israel and Jordan since 1948), the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai
peninsula, and parts of Syria (the Golan Heights).
n
The war changed the equation of the dispute. Before the war, the issue at stake
for both sides has been the existence of Israel. After the war, the issue at stake
was the return of the territories occupied during the war.
n
The Israeli government requests diplomatic recognition and peace treaties as the
price for the return of land.
n
The idea of exchange land for peace became the basis of the U.N. resolutions
242 and 338 and all other subsequent peace treaties.
n
For instance, the 1978 Camp David Accords stipulated the Israeli withdrawal
from Sinai in exchange for recognition and peace with Egypt.
The 1967 U.N. Resolutions 242 - semantic dispute
n
n
n
What the resolution says :
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment
of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the
application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed
forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of
all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement
of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every
state in the area and the right to live in peace within secure and recognised
boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
The French translation of the Operative Clause 1 (i) states :
Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du
récent conflit.
The Palestinians maintain that Resolution 242 requires an Israeli withdrawal
from all the occupied territories as part of any final settlement. Israeli
Government web-sites, articles in the media by writers favorable to rightwing Israeli stances, and letters written to the press frequently assert that a
withdrawal from ‘some’ but not ‘all’ of the territories was intended by
Resolution 242.
The U.N. Resolutions 242 - semantic dispute 2
n
Shabtai Rosenne, former Permanent Representative of Israel to the United
Nations Office at Geneva and member of the UN's International Law
Commission, notes that:
n
It is an historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the
negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the
other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were
conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security
Council document S/8247. [...] Many experts in the French language,
including academics with no political axe to grind, have advised that the
French translation is an accurate and idiomatic rendering of the original
English text, and possibly even the only acceptable rendering into
French."[...] "[o]n the question of concordance, the French representative
[to the 1379th meeting of the Security Council on November 16, 1967] was
explicit in stating that the French text was "identical" with the English text.
n
He also states:
It is known from an outside source that the sponsors resisted all attempts to
insert words such as "all" or "the" in the text of this phrase in the English
text of the resolution, and it will not be overlooked that when that very word
"all" erroneously crept into the Spanish translation of the draft, it was
subsequently removed.
The U.N. Resolutions 242 - semantic dispute 3
n
Solicitor, John McHugo, a partner at Trowers & Hamlins and a
visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at
Edinburgh University, draws a comparison to phrases such as:
Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.
n
n
In spite of the lack of definite articles, according to McHugo, it is
clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply
that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies
only near some ponds.
Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic
employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the
Resolution, which guarantees Israel "freedom of navigation
through international waterways in the area," may allow Arab
states to interfere with navigation through some international
waterways of their choosing.
Post-1967 War Arab Strategy
n
In the aftermath of the 1967 war, at the Khartoum conference the Arab states
negotiated a unified position - the famous “three no’s” :
n
1. no negotiations with Israel,
n
2. no peace with Israel,
n
3. no recognition of Israel.
n
Although the Arab states pledged not to negotiate with Israel, they did not
pledge not to negotiate through other states, i.e. indirectly.
n
Since the Soviet Union had broken the diplomatic relationships with Israel
after the 1967 War, for the Arab states, the only possible partner in the indirect
negotiations with Israel was the U.S. That is how the U.S. became a major
player in the Middle Eastern peace processes.
n
This tactic was dangerous for the Arab states, because it assumed that the
American government wanted the settlement that they would put pressure on
Israel.
n
However, American politicians were actually afraid of touching the issue.
The War of Attrition & the 1973 War
n
n
An undeclared War of Attrition (1969–70) was fought between Egypt and
Israel along the Suez Canal and ended with the help of international
diplomacy. The Soviet Union and the PLO were also involved. The war
was started by the Egyptians with the goal of recapturing the Sinai
peninsula conquered by Israel during the 1967 war. The hostilities between
the countries ended in 1970 after a ceasefire treaty was signed. The borders
remained where they were in 1967.
1973 Arab-Israeli war, also called the Yom Kippur War by the Jews or
the October War by the Arabs. The war began on 6 October, the Feast of
YOM KIPPUR, Israel's important religious holiday, when Egyptian forces
crossed the Suez Canal and breached the Israeli Bar Lev Line. Syrian
troops threw back Israeli forces on the Golan Heights, occupied by the
latter since the Six-Day War (1967). The war lasted three weeks, in which
time Israel pushed Syrian forces back into Syria and crossed the Canal,
encircling an Egyptian army. In the aftermath, disengagement agreements
were signed by Israel with Syria in 1974 and with Egypt in 1974 and 1975.
The Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was completed in 1982 after the 1978
Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.
The 1973 War
n
n
n
n
n
11,000-16,000 more Arab and Israeli casualties. Roughly speaking, 6 times more
casualties on the Arab side.
The oil prices went up. Western scholars believe that the Arab OPEC members
“used the war as an excuse to hike the oil prices.” The economists from the Arab
OPEC countries argue that the war around the Suez Canal disrupted their sales.
However, the Arab OPEC countries did threaten European countries with an oil
embargo and trade boycott if they continue supplying Israel with ammunition.
Israel became totally dependent on the U.S. to resupply its army, the Western
sources say.
The U.S. and Soviet union came almost to the brink of nuclear war. What actually
happened is that on October 23-24 Brezhnev sent Nixon a letter proposing that
American and Soviet contingents be dispatched to ensure that both sides honor the
ceasefire. Brezhnev also said that if the U.S. declined the participation that the
Soviet Union would undertake the steps unilaterally. He objected the arbitrariness
of Israel implying that the Soviets would take the Egyptian side.
The American government pressured Sadat to drop his request for assistance from
the Soviets. The Soviets were not also quite willing to start WWIII because of
Egypt and Syria. On Sadat’s intervention with the Soviets, the conflict was avoided.
Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Immediately after the 1967 war, the Israeli government declared Jerusalem
to be the Israel’s eternal indivisible capital.
Settlers began moving in and the municipal boundaries were extended far
into the West Bank.
In 2009 there were about 200,000 Jewish settlers in Arab East Jerusalem.
The new municipal boundaries of Jerusalem comprise 10% of the West Bank
territory.
The Israelis built settlements in the West Bank (called Judea and Samaria,
after its Biblical name), the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip.
Settlements were built first alongside the Jordanian border, ostensibly for
security purposes.
Then came religious settlers and those interested in low-cost state-subsidized
housing.
As of June 30, 2009, 304,569 Israelis live in the 149 officially recognized
settlements in the West Bank and over 20,000 live in settlements in the
Golan Heights. (Data from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz)
On November 2, 2011 - Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers
(BBC.)
Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories 2
n
Most of the international community considers the settlements to be a
violation of international law.
n
the 4th Geneva convention of 1949 stipulates that
“occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.”
n
By giving tax incentives and other encouragements to settlers, it is
argued, the Israeli government is encouraging the transfer of
population.
n
Before the Reagan administration (1981-89), the U.S. government
called Israeli settlements illegal.
n
until spring 2004 the official American position is that they are “an
obstacle to peace.”
• 62% of the West Bank is under full Israeli
control. This area contains all Israeli
settlements, roads used by settlers, buffer
zones and almost all of the Jordan Valley •
38% under Palestinian civil control. In more
than half of this, Israel has security control •
There are 149 settlements and 100 outposts
(settlements not authorised by Israel) • [In
2010,] the Population of West Bank: 2.4
million Palestinians, nearly 500,000 Jewish
or Israeli settlers. [source BBC]
Learn more about the life in the occupied
Palestinian territories from Anna Baltzer, a
Jewish activist for Palestinian human rights
Life in Occupied Palestine by Anna Baltzer
An Interview with Anna Baltzer
• Area A (full civil and security control by
the Palestinian Authority): circa 3% of the
West Bank, exclusive East Jerusalem (first
phase, 1995).
• Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint
Israeli-Palestinian security control): circa
23-25% (first phase, 1995). This area
includes some 440 Palestinian villages and
their surrounding lands, and no Israeli
settlements.
• Area C (full Israeli civil and security
control): circa 72-74% (first phase, 1995).
Under the Wye River Memorandum, Israeli
would further withdrawal from some
additional 13%, which officially reduced
Area C to circa 61% of the West Bank. Israel,
however, withdrew from only 2% and during
Operation Defensive Shield, it reoccupied all
territory.
n
Map showing boundaries of the
proposed Jewish state, as outlined
by the Zionist representatives at
the 1919 Paris Peace Conference,
superimposed on modern
boundaries.
n
n
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006) is a
New York Times Best Seller book written by
Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United
States (1977–1981) and winner of the 2002
Nobel Peace Prize.
While President, Carter hosted talks between
Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat
of Egypt that led to the Israel-Egypt Peace
Treaty (Camp Davis Accord of 1978). In this
book Carter argues that "Israel's continued
control and colonization of Palestinian land
have been the primary obstacles to a
comprehensive peace agreement in the
Middle East." That perspective, coupled with
Apartheid in the titular phrase Peace Not
Apartheid (which many regard as a subtitle)
and allegations of errors and misstatements in
the book, sparked criticism. Carter has
defended his book and countered that
response to it "in the real world…has been
overwhelmingly positive."
Jimmy Carter
(1924-)
Watch President Carter
n
n
Israel - Democracy or Ethnocracy
According to the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel,
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the
ingathering of the exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of
all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the
prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its
inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion,
conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all
religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The 2005 US Department of State report on Israel wrote: "[T]he government
generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in
some areas, including... institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the
country’s Arab citizens."[source: US State Department]
See: President Obama on Israel
as “a vibrant democracy”
Israel - Democracy or Ethnocracy
n
n
In a report submitted to the United Nations, Bedouin claim they face
discrimination and are not treated as equal citizens in Israel and that
Bedouin towns are not provided the same level of services or land that
Jewish towns of the same size are and they are not given fair access to
water. The city of Be'er Sheva refused to recognize a Bedouin holy site,
despite a High Court recommendation.[source: Israeli paper Haaretz]
According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the
Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal
discrimination against the country's Arab citizens." [source: U.S. State
Department] Reports of subsequent years also identified discrimination
against Arab citizens as a problem area for Israel, but did not repeat the
assertion that Israel had done little to reduce discrimination. [source:
U.S. State Department]
See: Israel's unwanted citizens
Racism clouds Israeli student poll
Israel: Racism or Ethnocentrism
n
n
According to the research performed by the Israeli NGO, the Association for
Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), in 2007, "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe
Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured, and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens
fear Arabs all together....The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's
racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said
they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their
children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes." [ACRI] The
2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.[ACRI]
An Israeli minister, Zeev Boim, charged the poll as biased and not credible. The
Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was
"committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to
full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background,
as defined by our declaration of independence." [BBC] Isi Leibler of the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by
"increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the
state" while it is at war with neighboring countries, and therefore have grounds
for their racism. [Jerusalem Post]
See: Racism in Israel - Parts 1 & 2
Israel: Racism or Ethnocentrism
n
Israeli society in general – and Ashkenazi Jews (Yidish speakers from Europe) in
particular – have been described as holding discriminatory attitudes towards Mizrahi or
Oriental Jews (Arabic, Turkic, Kurdish, Persian speakers from the Middle East, North
Africa, and Caucasus) and Sephardic Jews (Judeo-Spanish speakers originally from
Iberian Peninsula who escaped to the Ottoman Empire). A variety of Mizrahi critics of
Israeli policy have cited "past ill-treatment, including the maabarot, the squalid tent
cities into which Mizrahim were placed upon arrival in Israel; the humiliation of
Moroccan and other Mizrahi Jews when Israeli immigration authorities shaved their
heads and sprayed their bodies with the pesticide DDT; the socialist elite's enforced
secularization; the destruction of traditional family structure, and the reduced status of
the patriarch by years of poverty and sporadic unemployment" as examples of
mistreatment.[Middle East Quarterly] In September 1997, Israeli Labor Party leader
Ehud Barak made a high-profile apology to Mizrahi Jews.
n
More recently, other communities have also arrived including Ethiopian Jews and
Indian Jews. Their representatives also complained of being discriminated against by the
Ashkenazi (European) leadership. (For more info visit the Israeli NGO, ADVA Center.)
See: Marriage Discrimination in Israel
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)
n
Until 1993 and Oslo Accords, the Israeli government did not recognize the
existence of the Palestinian nation and when it was negotiating peace, it was
negotiating it with the neighboring Arab states, not the Palestinians
themselves.
n
The PLO is the political incarnation of the Palestinian nation and was for a
long time the main representative of the Palestinian nationalist idea.
n
The PLO was formed in 1964 on the initiative of Gamal ‘Abd al-Naser
who intended to maintain control over it. The first president of the PLO was
Ahmad Shuqairy, a “fairly worthless career diplomat.” On the eve of the
1967 war, he stated that the Arabs would “push the Jews into the sea.”
n
Around the same time, Yasser Arafat was elected the new leader of the PLO
and he remained in that function until his death in 2004.
n
Palestinian leader, chairman of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
from 1968. In 1956 he co-founded Al
Fatah, the Arab group which came to
dominate the PLO from 1967. In 1974 he
became the first representative of a nongovernmental organization to address the
United Nations General Assembly. Despite
challenges to his authority within the PLO,
he has remained its leader. After the
signing of a PLO–Israeli peace accord
providing for limited Palestinian autonomy
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in
July 1994 Arafat became leader of the new
Palestine National Authority. The same
year he shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with Yitzhak RABIN and Shimon
PERES. Arafat won a landslide victory
in the first Palestinian presidential
elections (1996).
Yasser Arafat
(1929-2004)
PLO & Arafat - goals and transformations
n
During the 1950’s, Arafat became influenced by the golden age of Arab antiimperialism and secular Arab nationalism. However, it seems that Arafat did
not expect much from the Arab regimes, which were in 1951 “for the most
part corrupt or tied to imperialism...” He believed that “the Palestinians
could rely only on themselves.”
n
Accordingly, Arafat concluded that the Palestinians themselves, not
established Arab states, would have to be responsible for the liberation of
Palestine, and the idea that Palestinians would have to form their own
organizations that cooperated with, but were independent of, established
states and parties in the region.
n
The 1967 war proved Arafat’s skepticism correct.
n
In 1974 the Arab states recognized the PLO as “the sole legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people.”
n
Initially, the PLO advocated the liberation of all of historic Palestine. For
some in the PLO historic Palestine included Jordan as well.
PLO & Arafat - goals and transformations 2
n
From 1977, the PLO has advocated the establishment of the mini-state in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At first, some PLO leaders asserted that this
mini-state would be a temporary condition until all Palestine could be
liberated. In the meantime, the mini-state is the best they could hope for.
n
Arafat has worked hard, but not effectively enough to demonstrate that the
hijackings and terrorist operations that marked PLO tactics in the 1970’s
have given way to a responsible government in the process of formation.
The Oslo Accord of 1993
n
From 1948-1993, the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians continued to
be defined as a dispute among states (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon).
n
The Oslo Accord of 1993 and the subsequent Oslo II Agreement consisted of
two components :
1. an exchange of letters of mutual recognition
2. more concrete proposals to establish Palestinian rule in the territories.
n
The exchange of the letters changed the definition of the conflict forever.
The other aspects of the Oslo process have been suspended or failed.
n
Other then mutual recognition, Oslo dies in an atmosphere of violence and
distrust.
n
Palestinians signed it, because life under Israeli occupation had been difficult
and the conditions under which the refugee lived were deplorable.
n
On their part, the Israelis longed for a normal life and anticipated the
economic benefits in the “age of globalization.”
Occupation and its Consequences
n
Unemployment in the Gaza Strip had reached over 40% and the territory had
become the most densely populated area in the world.
n
To make the matters worse, the PLO has been chased out of Jordan in 1970 and
Lebanon in 1983 only to end up in far off Tunisia.
n
After the Oslo process, the PLO dominance over the Palestinian movement has
been challenged by Islamic groups that were based in the occupied territories.
Also, because of the end of the Cold War and its support for the Iraqi invasion
of Kuwait in 1990, the PLO could not longer count on East Bloc or Gulf Arab
financial and diplomatic assistance.
n
Pressed by the occupation and hard life conditions, the Palestinians of the
occupied territories started the first intifada (insurgency) in 1987. The second
intifada started in 2000. The third intifada seem to have started in 2015.
For more information on the consequences of occupation check the website of the organization
If Americans Knew and the website of the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the
Occupied Territories B’Tselem.
Failure of the Oslo Process
n
The Oslo Process was based on the premise of trust. However, since the most
difficult issues such as Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to
their homes in Israel have never been resolved, the trust has never materialized.
n
The Israelis blamed the Palestinian terror and halted the whole process during the
second intifada launched by the Palestinians in 2000.
n
The Palestinians blamed Israel’s intransigence and bad faith. During the Oslo
Process, they maintain, the number of settlers in the occupied territories doubled,
new settlements and “bypass roads” connecting those settlements to each other and
to Israel were built, and land confiscation continued, as did the destruction of
Palestinian homes and orchards by the Israeli army.
n
Looking at the Rhodes Talks (1949), the Johnston Plan (1953-55), the Rogers Plan
(1969), the First Geneva Conference (1973), the Second Geneva Conference
(1975), the Framework for peace in the Middle East (1978), the Schultz Plan
(1988), the Reagan Plan (1982), and the Madrid Conference (1991), Camp David
Summit (2000), Roadmap for Peace (2003), Arab Peace Initiative (2007), etc. one
might be justified in wondering whether the conflict can ever be resolved.
Success of Nationalisms
n
Like all nationalisms, both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism define themselves
in relation to what they oppose.
n
Early Zionist settlers saw their mission as establishing a Jewish land as “an outpost
of civilization within a land inhabited by the primitives.” (Gelvin) The Zionist
settler with rifle in one hand and plow in the other became their heroic ideal.
n
Had it not been for Zionism, Palestinian nationalism would have evolved along the
lines of Syrian or Iraqi nationalism had it evolved at all.
n
The conditions have shaped the form of both nationalisms.
n
Over the past sixty years, the conflict has materialized Arab political culture,
coarsened politics so that even torture and terror can be rationalized, led to the
destruction of the centuries-old Arab-Jewish communities, and reinforced the
tendency for regimes to find military solutions to political problems.
n
Currently, Arab states account for about 30% of the world’s arms sale.
n
From 1948 until today, there have been some 50,000 to 125,000 military casualties
on the Arab side and 21,000 on the Israeli side. From among the Arab casualties,
the largest number comes from Egypt.
Transformative Abilities of Nationalisms
n
Anwar Sadat :
“I am ready to go to their house, the Knesset, to discuss peace with the Israeli
leaders.”
n
Benny Morris, an Israeli Historian, and Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime
minister (1999-2001), of the Labour Party, describe nakba (calamity or tragedy of
1947-49) as:
“the shattering and exile of a whole society, accompanied by thousands of deaths
and the wholesale destruction of hundreds of villages.” (see, The NY Book
Review)
n
Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981, because of his political flexibility since the
climate of intolerance has been well-developed through decades of nationalism. He
signed Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979, notably making Egypt the first Arab
nation to officially recognize Israel.
n
Ehud Barak is still alive. However, Yitzhak Rabin who expressed the willingness
to work on peace and tolerance was assassinated, too.
n
While individuals can change their mind, it seems that there is no perpetual
resolution to any political and social problem as long as intolerant and chauvinistic
ideologies are disseminated among peoples.
n
Israeli statesman, prime minister (1974–
77, 1992–95). As chief of staff (1964–
68), he directed Israeli operations in the
Six-Day War (1967). Rabin was
ambassador to the USA (1968–73)
before becoming prime minister. As
minister of defense (1984–90), he
directed operations against the
Palestinian Intifada and, having regained
leadership of the Labour Party from
Shimon Peres, became prime minister
for the second time. In 1993, Rabin
signed the Israeli-Palestinian Accord
with the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), promising progress
towards Palestinian autonomy in the
occupied territories. On November 4,
1995, a right-wing Jewish extremist
assassinated Rabin.
Yitzhak Rabin
(1922-1995)
Proposed Solutions
Three-State Solution
n
The three-state solution, also called the Egyptian-Jordanian solution,
and the Jordan-Egypt option, is an approach to peace in the Israeli–
Palestinian conflict by giving control of the West Bank to Jordan and
control of the Gaza Strip to Egypt. While the two-state solution is still the
prevailing option, the three-state solution is being raised with increasing
frequency as the viability of the two-state solution has been repeatedly
called into question. The New York Times reported in January 2009 that
Egypt and Jordan are increasingly concerned about the possibility of having
to retake responsibility for Gaza and the West Bank.[NYT]
n
The three-state solution essentially replicates the situation that
existed between the 1949 Armistice Agreements and the 1967 SixDay War. Beginning in 1949, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, Jordan
occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and no Palestinian Arab
state existed. In 1950, Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and
granted the Arab residents Jordanian citizenship.
Two-State Solution
n
The two-state solution is in practice a proposal for the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. To achieve a two-state solution, a
number of difficult issues need to be resolved, including the borders of the Palestinian
state, the citizenship of the new Palestinian state, the status of Palestinian refugees
outside the final borders, and the status of Arab citizens of present-day Israel, besides
the future of East Jerusalem.
n
The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the Middle East situation
that "throughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and
Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement." A 2007 poll
reported that, when forced to choose between a two-state solution and a binational
state, over one quarter of the Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
preferred neither, 46% of respondents preferred the two-state over the binational
solution, and 26% preferred the binational over the two-state. The solution enjoys
majority support in Israeli polls as well although there has been some erosion to its
prospects over time.[Reut Institute] However, more than 80% of Palestinians would
not give up the demand for refugees from the 1947–49 war and their descendants to
be able to move to Israel, a move that would negate the existence of Israel's ethnic
Jewish majority. As such, the majority of Palestinians do not accept the concept of
two states for two peoples. In addition, while Israel's Palestinian Arab minority would
not need to move, the majority of Palestinians are against West Bank Jews gaining
Palestinian citizenship and not being expelled.[PCPO]
One-State Solution
n
The one-state solution and the similar binational solution are proposed approaches
to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proponents of a binational solution to the
conflict advocate either a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or a
single state in Israel and the West Bank, with citizenship and equal rights in the
combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity
or religion. While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons, others feel
simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation.
n
Though increasingly debated in academic circles, this approach has remained
outside the range of official efforts to resolve the conflict as well as mainstream
analysis, where it is eclipsed by the two-state solution. The two-state solution was
most recently agreed upon in principle by the government of Israel and the
Palestinian Authority at the November 2007 Annapolis Conference and remains the
conceptual basis for negotiations proposed by the administration of U.S. President
Barack Obama in 2011. Interest in a one-state solution is growing, however, as the
two-state approach fails to accomplish a final agreement. Support among
Palestinians for a one-state solution is increasing. Zionists are refusing it especially
because the population growth rate of Palestinians would leave Palestinians as a
majority in a single state.[Reut Institute]
Recognition of the State of Palestine
n
The State of Palestine was proclaimed on 15 November 1988 in Algiers at
an extraordinary session in exile of the Palestine National Council. Legal
justification for this act was based on United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the
termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states.
States that have so far recognized the state of Palestine are in green
11/29/2012, U.N. General Assembly vote to upgrade the
Palestinian Authority’s observer status at the United Nations
from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican.
Read the U.N. communiqué
The Role of Religion
in the Arab-Israeli
Conflict
n
n
As stated earlier, the Arab-Israeli conflict started
essentially as a territorial dispute. However, the
longer the conflict lasts, the more religiously
motivated has it become, especially since the
collapse of the Oslo Agreement of 1993.
The extremists of all three Abrahamic religions Jewish, Christian, and Muslim - are asking for
uncompromising solutions. While the so-called
Islamic State is dreaming of the restoration of the
caliphate in the region, and HAMAS of the
establishment of an Islamic State in Palestine,
Jewish and Christian zealots are trying to hasten
the return of the Messiah and to ultimately
expend Israel to its Biblical borders.
n
Promise to Abraham (2000 BCE) (Genesis, 15:18-21)
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your
descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the
Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites,
Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
n
Promise to Abraham (Genesis, 15:18-21)
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your
descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[a] of Egypt to the great river, the
Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites,
Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
Different maps of the Promised Land?
n
Promise to Moses
(1393-1273BCE)
(Exodus 23:31)
31 “I will establish your
borders from the Red
Sea to the
Mediterranean Sea, and
from the desert to the
Euphrates River. I will
give into your hands the
people who live in the
land, and you will drive
them out before you.”
n
Promise to Moses (Numbers 34:1-12)
34 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Command the Israelites and
say to them: ‘When you enter Canaan, the land that will be
allotted to you as an inheritance is to have these boundaries:
3 “‘Your southern side will include some of the Desert of
Zin along the border of Edom. Your southern boundary
will start in the east from the southern end of the Dead
Sea, 4 cross south of Scorpion Pass, continue on to Zin and
go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar
Addar and over to Azmon, 5 where it will turn, join the
Wadi of Egypt and end at the Mediterranean Sea. 6 “‘Your
western boundary will be the coast of the Mediterranean
Sea. This will be your boundary on the west. 7 “‘For your
northern boundary, run a line from the Mediterranean Sea
to Mount Hor 8 and from Mount Hor to Lebo Hamath.
Then the boundary will go to Zedad, 9 continue to Ziphron
and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the
north. 10 “‘For your eastern boundary, run a line from
Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 The boundary will go down
from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and
continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Galilee.[a]
12 Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and
end at the Dead Sea. “‘This will be your land, with its
boundaries on every side.’”
Politics & Religion in Judaism
n
n
n
The interpretations of the Jewish holy scriptures, as it is the case with the
Christian and Islamic ones, are so flexible that different schools of theological
thought hold completely opposite views on some key issues.
Thus, while the Orthodox Jewish rabbis of the Neturei Karta school consider
the state of Israel an artificial creation, an obstacle to peace, and object its
very existence as blasphemous (see this video), on the other side, the majority
of ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbis support Israel, especially since the 1967 war
after which Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and Golan Heights came
under the Israeli control. This military success they see as a sign of God.
While according to the classical Judaism and the Naturei Karta rabbis, the
Messiah is a godly figure who will lead the Jews to the Promised Land, build
Israel, and bring peace to the world, a group of ultra-Orthodox Hassidic
rabbis have come to believe that Israel could have been built even without the
Messiah, that he can come later, and that his arrival can even be hastened by
secular political decisions. Thus, in this video a Hassidic rabbi advises the
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to do exactly that.
Politics & Religion in Christianity
n
n
n
n
American Dispensationalist Pre-Millennialist Evangelical Christians (followers
of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham,
etc.) are particularly fervent in supporting Israel, for they believe that Jesus’s
Second Coming cannot happen until the Third Temple in Jerusalem is built
and the battle of Armageddon is fought. In their passionate desire to see the
Christ, a great many of the followers of the mentioned pastors would like to
hasten these two latter prophesies mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
The problem is that the third most important shrine of Islam, the mosque of
the Dome of the Rock and the adjacent al-Aqsa Mosque are located at the
place where Christian and Jewish messianists would like to see the Third
Jewish Temple built. If these Islamic shrines ever get destroyed, as there have
been threats to do so, that could potentially lead to WWIII.
Here are some news from 11/05/14 on the clashes at the mosque’s site.
According to a Pew Research Center research, American evangelical
Christians are even more supportive of Israel than American Jews by some
measures.
Politics & Religion in Islam
n
n
n
n
It is very often claimed that the Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the
West, stems from the fact that Islam is the religion that does not recognize the
separation of religion from other spheres of life, including politics. While this
might be considered true, as we have seen, the same is true of the other two
Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism, even today when the West is
officially considered secular, just like Turkey or Lebanon.
The goal of Islamist movements in the Middle East is to reislamicize once “Arab
socialist states” (like Iraq, Syria, Egypt), which have been secular until recently.
One of these Islamist movements is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose
off-shot is HAMAS, the Palestinian militant group considered terrorist by the
West, but not by Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and some Arab nations at times.
HAMAS (acronym for !"#$%&‫! ا‬#‫*)و‬+‫! ا‬,-. Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah alʾIslāmiyyah) “Islamic Resistance Movement” has as its goal the “liberation of
Palestine from the Zionist colonization and the establishment of an Islamic state
in the territory.”
Watch this short documentary to learn how HAMAS perceives itself and how
their opponents perceive them.
Other materials depicting the sources of the dispute
& current situation:
n
Interviews with Israeli settlers in West Bank
n
Head to Head - Israeli settlers patriots or invaders?
n
The shocking video Muslims do not want you to see
n
Orthodox Jewish settlers in Hebron (West Bank)
n
A Zionist view of the Boycott Divestment Sanction
Movement (BDS)
n
Stephen Hawking’s Israel boycott causes backlash
n
The Cold Realities of US policy in Israel-Palestine
n
AIPAC - Inside America’s Israel Lobby