The Israeli-Palestinian Struggle - Research Paper Example

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is a struggle that has been going on since the mid of the 20th century. This conflict has caused a high level of violence for almost the whole duration. It has often been said that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is about land. The most probable solution to Palestinian-Israeli conflict is creation of one state. Anthropology gives a scientific basis for handling crucial dilemma in today’s world. It explores how people of diverse appearance, different cultures and mutually incomprehensible languages live together peacefully. This paper will give an analysis of the possible causes of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as well as solutions for the conflict from anthropological point of view. Introduction The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is a struggle that has been going on since the mid of the 20th century. Within both Palestinian and Israeli societies, this conflict has generated a wide range of opinions and views. This underscores the deep divisions existing between Palestinians and Israelis and also within either society. This conflict has caused a high level of violence for almost the whole duration. Paramilitary groups, regular armies, terror cells and individuals have been conducting fights. Besides the military, casualties have also come from civilian population with a lot of fatalities on both sides. It has been noted that prominent global actors have engaged themselves in the conflict (Gelvin 15). Anthropology gives a scientific basis for handling crucial dilemma in today’s world. It explores how people of diverse appearance, different cultures and mutually incomprehensible languages live together peacefully. Anthropology calls for no naturalization of all human constructions and recognition of culture’s arbitrariness including arbitrariness of power (Lewellen 17). This paper will give an analysis of the possible causes of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as well as solutions for the conflict from anthropological point of view. Causes of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict It has often been said that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is about land. This claim is designed to counter the usual misconception suggesting that the Israelis and Palestinians have a historical clash that dates back to hundreds of years as a result of inherent cultural and religious contempt for each other. The lands claims play a vital role in both sides of animosities, but it fails to give the full story (Harms 60). The more complex and more accurate explanation for this conflict is that it is about the emerging relationship between two groups of people living in the same area, particularly regarding the emergence of firstly, Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and secondly, Palestinian nationalism, which occurred between the late 19th century and early 20th century. The definitions and development of both nationalisms are the basis of the conflict. The emergence of Zionism was not in reaction to Muslims, Palestinians or Arabs, but in response to perceived and real anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia. Although the decision to make Israel a Zionist state location was founded on religious factors, this was largely untrue regarding the decision to establish a Zionist state. When Zionists came to Israel, they did not intend to evict the native population although they were oblivious to it to a great extent. The Zionist movement encouraged immigration to Israel using the slogan, "A land without a people for a people without a land." On reaching Israel, they sought land and believed this maxim, and in this way, they had already sowed the seed of the conflict. Mostly, Zionist settlers showed no animosity against the indigenous population. They never removed Palestinians from their land using force, but they had a simple economic strategy of purchasing land from Arab tribes that represented the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This resulted into the Palestinians identifying themselves as a people. The Palestinian nationalism came out as an opposing force to the Israelis. Within a short time, the Zionists incorporated an opposition to the Palestine people and to a smaller extent, all Arabs, into their strategy (Gelvin 19). Evolving nationalisms require an opposing force in order to define them. These days, there is little anti-Semitism unlike historic rates in most countries and the modern state of Israel relies more on self-definition in opposition to Hamas and Islamic terrorists than in opposing the presence of anti-Semitism. in the same way, with Israel allowing increased self-government in the West Bank and Gaza, the ideology of Palestinian nationalists has somewhat splintered, resulting into Fatah fighting Hamas. Nevertheless, both Fatah and Hamas do not care about Israel and their civil fight most likely a temporary diversion from bigger ideological war between Israelis and Palestinians (Harms 72). Cultural Forces The greatest myth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is an old rivalry dating back to biblical times. Religious and cultural differences between the two societies are nearly fully a political wedge to support the form of nationalism of each group. Zionists picked Palestine as the place for Jewish immigration due to religious reason, though others proposed others places like Uganda and the U.S. Romans removed Jews from Palestine I the 2nd century. From a theological viewpoint, the Jews evicted from Eretz-Israel exile, and the come back to Israel was the religion’s belief even ahead of the 1880s and the Zionism advent. However, the decision to resettle the Jews was a political but not a religious one (Tamari 97). Until the First World War and the division of Ottoman Empire and Syria, Palestinian Arab inhabitants identified themselves as Syrians, Ottoman citizens or Ottoman subjects. They had rural living and produced melons, olives, grains and cotton. The Jews in Palestine were Ashkenazi and Sephardic. The Ashkenazi Jews were Europeans who were deeply religious and had come to Palestine to pray and die. The Sephardic Jews were Ottoman citizens who were Arabic-speaking and were incorporated into the culture and had good relations with the native Muslims and Christians. Both groups feared change following the emergence of Zionist immigration. The religion and ethnicity of Arab Muslims and Jews was primarily co-opted by their individual nationalisms. Between 1920s and 1930s, governmental institutions reinforcing religious definitions emerged. Jews administered the Jewish Agency for Jews’ benefit. The supreme Muslim council emerged as the top Muslim governmental body. The separation between Arab and Muslim increased because none of the Jewish Arabs were Muslims and because Muslims had a text (the Quran) to help them voice their dissatisfaction while Jewish had none. Religious rhetoric of difference and resentment is common in modern Israel and Palestine from both sides, but is it is a reaction to the conflict and not its cause. Revitalization Movements According to Ted Lewellen, religion can replace direct political action in instances where an alien power has rendered natives politically impotent. For Palestinians, religion acted more as a supplement for political action rather than a substitute (Lewellen 70). The concern of most Palestinians is that Israelis/Jews inhabit their land; therefore, they want them to go. This matter generates a reaction resembling nativism, revitalization with the aim of purging the society of alien or unwanted elements. Revivalism is revitalization with the aim of reinstituting a former period of happiness. This is indicated in the period prior to Zionism when Palestine consisted of only 15,000 Jews, 43,000 Christians and 400,000 Muslims. The role played by religion in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its emergence out of the political field. Despite their religious trappings, revitalization movements are mainly political. The Palestinian-Islamic movement resulted from pain cry, political protest, and indictment in lack of power to confront the aliens on their terms. Likewise, the Zionist movement gathered people, some religious and others secular, and instilled them in religion in order to create an anti-systemic protest against oppression and anti-Semitism they were exposed to in Russia and Europe. Both Jewish and Palestinian nationalisms were established as oppositions to some dominant power. Even after becoming the dominant power, the Jewish nationalism continued (Tamari 74). Solution for Palestinian-Israeli Conflict The most probable solution to Palestinian-Israeli conflict is creation of one state, which can occur in two ways. Some propose the breaking-up of Israel-Palestine to two states. This will begin the process, which will end in one state. An example of such a case is the splitting of independent India into Pakistan and India resulting into the formation of a new state for a huge Muslim minority that originated from India. This is similar to Israel-Palestine with the start of Pakistan as two different enclaves since the proposed Palestinian state has been divided in Gaza and the West Bank. Because of a conflict between these two Pakistan parts, East Pakistan became Bangladesh. The BJP, a Hindu party, is dominant in politics of India and is responsible for Muslim massacres. India and Pakistan have battled four wars. During and after separation, if it happens, Israelis will attempt to trade their Palestinian enclaves for safeguarding the settlements. This will lead to removal of non-Jewish Israeli citizens from their country. This is prohibited ethnic cleansing. Palestinians will hate the continuance of settlements, as it seems to legalize the illegal. In international law, permanent civilian settlements are not permitted on territory acquired through war despite the circumstances that caused the war. Islamists will dominate the new Palestine state and no Jew will be permitted to settle there. There will be discrimination against Christians and many will go away. Already, this has been taking place in Gaza under Hamas and on the West Bank under Palestine authority. The new state of Palestine, just like Pakistan, will exist in two parts one in Gaza under Hamas and the other on the West Bank under Palestine authority. Conflict will occur, just like in Pakistan; this has in fact already occurred. They will then split leading to fragmentation of an already small state or one will defeat the other causing anger and a resistive people (Tilley 250). Israel will be more of a garrison state because it will have a feeling of being threatened by the new neighbor that will have freedom to arm itself and permit sympathetic armies of Arab to prepare to attack Israel. There will be a tendency of Palestine becoming a fundamentalist theocracy. They will continue to shoot rockets to Israel causing displaced settlers to agitate for a better Israel. Extremists from either side will carry out terrorist acts. They will eventually be a breakout of full scale war. Unlike Pakistan and India, four wars will not occur. Neither of the two states will be able to progress over fours wars like Pakistan and India. The result of this is either Israel reoccupying the Palestinian state or them disappearing as Palestine and Arab friends win. The situation will return to where it is now, if Israel manages to resettle in the Palestinian state. If it is eliminated it will become the end of a state that has arisen from a people’s ashes. Even without following the above scenario to the latter, two states will form a more unstable condition than the present. It can lead to one state through another route, but it will finally end in one state. This is due to the fact that the area of concern is too small to accommodate two states that are on bad terms. It is impossible to ignore the real attitudes since there is distrust, suspicion, and hate. These attitudes within the two states will remain and fester and the stage will ready for more war. The war will take place ending in one oppressive state. This could have occurred in South Africa if the Zulus and Afrikaners spilt from the new South Africa. But there was no room for self-determination and South Africa stayed put and is trying to transform people’s attitudes. After the Second World War, a number of states were partitioned into two. Examples of these are South and North Vietnam, South and North Korea, Pakistan and India and West and East Germany. None of these brought peace and no grounds exist to believe that the same will not happen in Palestine/Israel. Two of the above examples have reunified following a long conflict, while the other two are constantly in conflict. For instance, Pakistan is now an authoritarian and Islamist society, while India is a democratic and pluralist society. South Korea is democratic, while North Korea has totalitarian dictatorship. The conflict is worsened by the different social systems existing in the two countries. Partitioning the land between Mediterranean and Jordan into two states will probably create two systems. It will lead to Israel remaining a Jewish state with lots of democratic characteristics and a powerful fundamentalist presence. Presently, Palestine is spilt into a corrupt and authoritarian Fatah, and an Islamist Gaza. The resultant Palestinian state is likely to have free democratic features, if none (Tilley 47). The idea of two states for Palestine/Israel is not a good one yet it has gained acceptance. The idea of one state is an unpalatable solution to most of the concerned parties, but it can have a chance. In order to put this solution into action, the notion of a Palestinian or Jewish state should be given up and each party should work together in creating a state with no discrimination on the basis of religion and ethnicity. One good thing for South Africa is the fact that the Zulus and Afrikaners did not attain self-determination, thus all parties stay together. There are numerous Haredim in Israel. Generally, men are not involved in the economy. Their time is spent in religious text reading except in producing large families to emulate their lifestyles. They are the fastest growing population and a growing state burden. The Haredim schools produce children who have knowledge of Talmudic minutiae but no basics of literature or science outside their religious texts. There is no civil marriage in Israel. At present, Israel has many school systems that have been subsidized by the government. If Israel continues as it is, it is likely to perish owing to its contradictions even without a war (Vollhardt 86). The separate school systems include school systems for Muslims, religious Jews, secular Jews, and Haredim. It is necessary to have one state with a major public school system that incorporates all students despite their religion or ethnicity. Parents who want to take their children to any other school should pay the entire cost. The separation is too much already and people should school, work, and live together. It will be stupid to propose more separation to solve the problem. There will be objections from the religious zealous on either side. Some religious zealots from Muslim are Jihadis. Jihadis have no recognition for any king of relation with those who reject Islam apart from submission with a tax that acknowledges submission. This alternative is open to Christian or Jews only. The rest should convert to Islam or be killed. The Muslims who accept to accommodate non-Muslims, democracy, peaceful coexistence, or pluralism are seen as traitors and may be put to death too (Vollhardt 140). Israel has become a garrison state. Several generals take advantage of their military reputation to acquire an office. Israel has shunned away from Jewish tradition with regards to militarism. Jewish tradition demands that no one should rejoice in militarism. Although great emphasis has been put on the violence, Palestine has had a tradition of nonviolence. Some parts of either side have by now employed nonviolence. Distrust and hatred will not vanish through creating another state, but it will simply maintain the suspicion and separation. On the contrary, setting up a secular state that has opportunities for the diverse people to know one another through schooling, working, and living together would create peace. One such example is the great changes observed in the U.S. after the integration of public facilities and schools. The area experienced real apartheid following the Second World War. Most hotels and restaurants would not accommodate black people, and those that accepted them belonged to blacks only. When public facilities had just been desegregated, blacks would group together and whites would group together. Today, both races can mingle and have good times together. Although it will not occur overnight, the same can happen in Palestine/Israel if given a chance. Conclusion The conflict between Palestine and Israel resulted from competing nationalisms with each ready to eliminate the other. Although religious forces prompted Zionists to choose Palestine as their state location, their decision for state seeking was based on the political exclusion force. In Palestine, the transfer of power and land from the native Arab tribes to the Jewish people was led by economic forces. The political nationalism force led to the Arabs redefining themselves as Palestinians, and Jews as anti-Arabs. The Palestinians teamed up against the Jewish people (Wasserstein359). There is no benefit in blaming either side for the conflict. There was nothing wrong with Zionists escaping the circumstance in Europe where they were discriminated against, burdened by unequal laws, and perceived as second-hand citizens. This act of oppressed people evading oppression with such success is rare in today’s world. Similarly, the Palestinians suffer the burden of losing their land through inequality of the British Mandate as through the military and economic power of the Jews. As described above, a one state solution is the most appropriate to end this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, although this will probably take a long time. Works cited Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Harms, Gregory, and Todd M. Ferry. The Palestine-Israel conflict: a basic introduction. Pluto, 2012. Lewellen, Ted C. Political anthropology: an introduction. ABC-CLIO, 2003. Tamari, Salim, and Mark LeVine. Palestine, Israel, and the politics of popular culture. Eds. Rebecca L. Stein, and Ted Swedenburg. Duke University Press, 2005. Tilley, Virginia. The one-state solution: a breakthrough for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock. University of Michigan Press, 2005. Vollhardt, Johanna R. "The role of victim beliefs in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Risk or potential for peace?." Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 15.2 (2009): 135-159. Wasserstein, Bernard. "Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?." (2004): 357-364. Read More