Is There a Compromise in the Arab-Israeli Conflict - Research Proposal Example

ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT Table of Contents Contents Page No Introduction 03 CHAPTER 1: CAUSES OF ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT 04 CHAPTER 2: CONFLICT EVENTS 09 2.1 The Suez Crisis of 1956 09 2.2 The Wars of 1967 and 1973 09 2.3 The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon and Intifada 10 CHAPTER 3: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 11 3.1 Geo-strategic Importance of the Middle East 11 3.2 Role of UNO 11 3.2.1 UN Resolution No 194 12 3.2.2 UN Resolution No 242 12 3.2.3 UN Resolution No 338 12 3.3 United States Interest 12 3.4 US and Wider International Community 13 CHAPTER 4: AIMS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS 15 4.1 The Palestinians 15 4.2 The Israelis 16 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 Bibliography 20` Introduction The Arab-Israeli Conflict is one of the most critical and volatile issues in the World. Since it was originated with the emergence of the state of Israel in 1948, it has remained the source of regional conflicts with international persecutions. It has created one of the most discriminating refugees’ problems of present times, and has been the reason of four Arab – Israeli wars, it has distressed the Middle East and more than once it came near to causing a conflict between Super Powers. The crisis has committed indescribable human misery and a seemingly unending reign of terror in a land held sacred by Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. As a result, more than a million men, women and children have been expelled out of their homes and forced to become refugees. In the following paragraphs, it has been discussed that how I do research on this one of the burning issues of the world. The aim of the paper is to highlight the way of research I made on the on going Palestinian-Israeli conflict, its evolution, wars, and assess the chances of achieving a just and comprehensive resolution of the crisis. Month 01: 22/04/2010 to 21/05/2010 CHAPTER 1 CAUSES OF ARAB- ISRAEL CONFLICT My research paper on “Arab-Israel Conflict” is highly based on qualitative and historical facts. The adoption of this approach is based on several facts. Quantitaive approach is about the verification of a hypothesis while qualitative approach does not merely involve what, when and where, rather it deals with how and why of decision making (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Further, I had limited reference material and qualitative approach is best for limited literature review. One more reason of adopting this technique is its best role with respect to human history. The complexities, values, cultures, facts, and beliefs of history are such aspects that can only be covered through this approach. During the first month of research, it has been studied that Arab-Israel Conflict is one of the most difficult conflicts to resolve in terms of its complexity and long history. Before going to discover the nature and source of conflict, it was better to have a bird’s eye view on the geographical features of the Palestine. This region is bounded on the east by the Jordan, on the west by the Mediterranean, on the north by Lebanon, on the northeast by Syria and on the south by the Sinai Peninsula. The region has been known as Palestine for 2,000 years, and was occupied by a predominantly Palestinian population. The combined area of Palestine and Israel is slightly over 10,000 square miles between the Jordan River and the sea. During my literature review, I felt that both sides of the conflict have strong religious, cultural and political affiliations with this region. The Muslims claim that the region has accordance with the Holy Quran. They have great association with the Al-Aqsa Mosque as they believe that Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) passed through this mosque during the journey of heaven. Hamas group claims that this whole region is an Islamic Waqf which should be administered by the Muslims. On the other side of the conflict, Jews also have attachment with the region. They argue that The Land of Canaan or Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is the reward of God to the Jews. Besides the religious points of conflict, the Palestine issue involves the cultural and political causes between Muslims and Jews. The Jews conquered and ruled over Palestine from 11th to 6th century BCE. There are several memorable and respectful buildings are for the Jews. On the other side, Muslims conquered Jerusalem several times in history and they have the Al-Aqsa mosque, one of their greatest sources of interest in this part of the world. Muslims and Jews have serious concerns throughout the history. Both nations have totally different with respect to life style, culture, values, and priorities. These religious, political, national, and cultural differences have shaped the issue as one of the most difficult political dispute of history. Jewish intellectuals in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century began to support the notion that Jews should settle in Palestine, which they believed was their Biblical homeland. This idea became known as Zionism (Caplan, 2001). They were driven by two aims in their quest to find a place safe from anti-Semitism. These were the return to Jerusalem and the establishing of a nation state. For the Jews inside and outside Israel, Zionism has been a social and historical ideology. The ideology is a form of nationalism, a way to restore the dignity and safety of the Jewish people in the hundred years since its conception. During the 19th century, the Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire, centered at Turkey. In Europe, in response of violent attacks on Jews and their property, because of the increasing anti-Semitism, the immigration of European Jews to Palestine accelerated. “Between 1880 and 1929, more than 3.5 million Jewish people abandoned Eastern Europe – 2.3 million from Russia alone” (Senker, 2004, p.11). Zionists established numbers of colonies in Palestine area consisting of largely Arab and Muslim. By 1880, there were 24,000 Jews out of a total population of 525,000. By 1915, the Jewish population increased to 90,000 out of almost 600,000 while at the end of 1947, their population was one-third of the total of almost two millions. Initially there was no dispute as most of the immigrants and the Palestinian Arabs lived together peacefully. But with the increase in Jews population, the conflicts rose between the two groups. The Arab leaders intended to put an end the Jewish immigration and land acquisitions. At the end of World War I in 1918, Britain gained control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. In the Balfour declaration of 1917, Britain had supported the creation of a national homeland for the Jews. In 1937 a British commission recommended that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states, with the British controlling Jerusalem. The Zionists accepted the idea, but the Arabs rejected it. During the horrible scenario of World War II, the British government needed the support of Arab in the Middle East; therefore the idea was put on hold. But the idea was retrieved again when the war was over and Holocaust survivors and other Jewish displaced persons streamed toward Palestine. In November 1947, the UN approved a plan to divide Palestine into two states. Zionist leaders once again accepted the plan. Arab governments and the Palestinians however saw the division as the theft of Arab land by Zionists and the governments that supported them. The British government and rule ended from Palestine when Jews declared the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. The response of the Palestinians was natural. They were really exasperated as their native soil was taken mostly by force. The reaction was immediate, in what was to be a precursor to four armed conflicts. When the conflict is analyzed historically, one point is highlighted by the history and that is the role of United States. Due to several hidden interests for US in the region, it had a vital strategy to bring peace as well as in achieving its strategic objectives. After 9/11 attacks, the US adopted a new approach to the Middle East conflict laid down by the former Secretary of State’s speech, Colin Powell, in 19 November 2001 when he said “We have a vision of a region where Israelis and Arabs can live together in peace, security and dignity­­--- a region where two states Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders to obtain a just and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors…the framework for a solution is based on the core principle of the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which are rooted in the concept of land for pace….”. (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/6219.htm) The bush administration had lain down the vision but without a clear peace plan. The attacks motivated worldwide criticism and the launch of a “War against Terrorism” by the United States and its allies. They also created a situation similar to that just after the 1991 Gulf War in that a ‘window of opportunity’ for commitment to solve the Middle East crisis had been opened. The activities of Israel against the Palestinian population and US support of them had been cited as justification for the attacks. Just as in 1991 those Arab states that did lend their support, clearly expected the US to re-engage in the peace process by way of return and end their “double standards” policy and stop terrorist Israeli actions in the occupied territories. All of these factors lead the international community to again refocus on the conflict. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians initially attempted to use the event to their own advantage. The Israeli government condemned the attacks and emphasized the parallels between the terrorists who had attacked America and the Palestinians. Arafat also condemned the attacks, renewing calls for US intervention. Within a week he had pledged a ceasefire which Sharon was forced to match under pressure from the US and Europe. It seemed that the window of opportunity might have been wide enough for a return to dialogue and that the outline plan for ending the Intifada and returning to the negotiating table put forward by Senator George Mitchell in May 2001 might become a reality. Optimism was short lived however as violence soon broke out again. For the first four months of 2002 violence continued and escalated while both sides hardened their positions. Suicide bombings in Israel increased until they were an almost daily occurrence leading the Israeli Defense forces to retaliate with ever increasing force and the US to suggest that the responsibility for stopping the violence lay with the Palestinians. However, as the Israelis continued to increase the scale of their campaign and casualties on both sides continued to mount world opinions changed again. The US suggested that it is Israel who must scale down and initiate a withdrawal. During the course of my research several historical facts came into my knowledge. The most important one is the historical sources of conflicts that evolved through centuries. Month 02, Week5: 22/05/2010 to 29/05/2010 CHAPTER 2 CONFLICT EVENTS On the very next day of newly born state of Israel i.e. 15 May, 1948, the armies of five countries including Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria attacked the new country in intention of destroying it. Israel and the Arab countries agreed on cease fire by August 1949. Almost 70,000 Palestinians became refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan and along the Gaza Strip. 2.1 The Suez Crisis of 1956 During the 1950's nationalist feelings suffused the Arabs of the Middle East. Egyptian President Jamal Abdul Nasser and his followers sought to rid Arab lands of the influence of Western nations. On July 26, 1956 Nasser took over the Suez Canal from its British and French controllers. Britain, France and Israel secretly plotted to regain the canal and on October 29, they attacked the Egyptian forces in the Peninsula and along the Suez Canal defeating them. 2.2 The Wars of 1967 and 1973 The most dramatic of all was the Six-Day War, which lasted from June 5 to 10, 1967. Responding to what it perceived as an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Israel launched a large-scale occupational war under the cover of a preemptive strike against all three countries. Israel won stunning victories on all fronts. Israeli forces subjugated the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan. It also included the old and historical city of Jerusalem (Encarta Encyclopedia, 2009). After this war, the Israeli and Egyptian forces remained in active war as they attacked on each other repeatedly across the western border of the Sinai Peninsula. On 6 October 1973, in response of Six-Day War of 1967, Egypt and Syria launched a substantial attack on Israel. The attack was made in the Sinai and Golan Heights that took Israel by surprise because it was launched on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. At the outset, Egypt pushed Israel's forces away of the western Sinai while Syria recaptured the eastern part of Golan Heights. But due to massive military support of United States, the Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal. They first surrounded the Egyptian Third Army, and then repulsed the Syrian advance and eventually recaptured the Golan Heights once again. 2.3 The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon and Intifada Due to the PLO guerrilla attacks on Israel, especially from Southern Lebanon, Israel invaded the country in 1982. It drove the PLO out of the southern part of Lebanon and established a 40-km buffer zone. Palestinians began an uprising in 1987 along the West Bank and Gaza Strip against Israeli government. Soon this uprising became renowned as the 'Intifada', which, in Arabic means uprising. The protest occurred very quickly all over the occupied territories as the whole population of the towns turned down to pay taxes. The Muslims give up their jobs with Israeli employers. As a whole most of the demonstration were nonviolent, however few became resulted in violence (USA Today, 2001). The Intifada got the attention from the major world powers and criticized the way of Israeli control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and for its extreme use of power to suppress the local population. From 1950 to 2007, approximately 51,000 human fatalities (35,000 Arabs and 16,000 Jews) occurred in the violence of Arab and Jews (Buzan, 2003). Month 02, Week 6: 30/05/2010 to 06/06/2010 CHAPTER 3 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY At the start of the 2nd month I thoroughly studied the relevant literature review. During the second week, the guiding material and research has been arranged according to Kolb's model of experiential learning that is based on four elements i.e. concrete experience, observation and reflection, formations of abstract concepts and testing of these concepts in new situations (Kolb, 1984). Secondary sources have been consulted to analyze the role and interests of major powers of world in this issue. 3.1 Geo-strategic Importance of the Middle East The geo-strategic centrality of the Middle East, being at the crossroads of three continents; Europe, Asia and Africa, means that maintaining access to the region will continue to be an important global interest. Also, the area is located on the most convenient routes linking the populous regions of Europe and North America with the East. Fringed by five seas; the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Black Sea, the Gulf, and the Arabian Sea, the Middle East is easily accessible and provides many important transit maritime waterways such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz and the Turkish Straits. Additionally, almost 65% of the world's proven oil reserves are located in this region. The cost of importing this oil is among the lowest in the world. The region also has large reservoirs of natural gas that can significantly alter the international supply picture. In 1996, natural gas reserves accounted for about 30.5% of the world total, which alone is sufficient to satisfy current worldwide consumption for more than twenty years. Due to theses geo-strategic features, the world’s major powers have been remained involve in the political issues of this region. 3.2 Role of UNO During 1947 to 2002, the General Assembly of United Nations adopted 627 Resolutions on the Arab-Israel conflict. The UN has been at the forefront of resolving Arab-Israeli conflicts in a number of ways. First, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) have been providing social services to the Palestine population. Secondly, UN has from time to time passed resolutions to resolve the problem. Three of its major resolutions are: - 3.2.1 UN Resolution No 194. Resolution No 194 of 1948 established the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland or be resettled with compensation, if they so preferred. 3.2.2 UN Resolution No 242. This resolution called for the withdrawal of the Israel armed forces from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war. 3.2.3 UN Resolution No 338. No 338 reaffirmed resolution 242 and called for the end of the fourth Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. It also urged the parties to establish immediate negotiations for a just and durable peace in the region (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1973/scres73.htm). Notwithstanding these endeavors, the UN has frequently been criticized for failing to enforce its resolutions and play a more effective political role in the conflict. The main reason for this is that the important members of the UN have not agreed to perform such a role. 3.3 United States Interest Despite of the consequences which came at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War, America's interest remain long-lasting in the Middle East and this political aspect put her to remain active in the Arab-Israel Conflict. The foremost cause of the America’s continuous interest in Middle East is its great association with the oil reserves which constitutes 22% of its supplies, at reasonable costs. Secondly, since it has a close strategic relation with Israel as an ally, it will continue supporting Israel's survival and security. Third, the US will ensure the security and stability of friendly Arab states either for their centrality to regional stability or for the provision of access to oil. Supporting Egypt and Jordan will continue to be an American interest because of their commitment to peace with Israel. Also it will support preservation of the independence of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil producing states. Fourth, as the world's greatest maritime power the United States requires freedom of the sea. US trade is overwhelmingly water borne. Freedom of navigation and over flight also ensures that the US military can maintain an effective regional presence in peacetime or respond rapidly in a crisis. 3.4 US and Wider International Community United Nation Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and emphasized the right for every state to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly supported the Palestinians right to self-determination. The UN always called for a halt in the violence by both sides, for the resumption of negotiations and the implementation of Sharm el-Sheikh/Mitchell Plan “in a speedy manner”. The UN Security Council has endorsed the idea of a Palestinian State, directing that the two sides be able to “live side by side within secure and recognized borders”. Although the UN has declared its wishes none of the major powers have been willing to take direct action to enforce these resolutions. The United States and European Union continue to express their desire for a termination of violence and a return to the negotiating table. The EU, traditionally more in sympathy with the Palestinians, has stated its intention to appoint a peace envoy but it was even not allowed by the Israelis to meet the Palestinian leaders. The European states are most likely to continue to act through the UN and to support in principle any initiatives made by the United States. The US continues to be the most influential power in the region and the only one with the political, economic and military leverage to enforce a settlement. Traditionally pro-Israel and its major financial supporter US policy has long been influenced by a strong domestic lobby which supports Israel and its historical use of Israel to represent its interests first against the former Soviet Union influence and more recently against pan Arab influence in the region. The US was forced to become directly involved in the peace process as a result of its commitments to the Arab states during the 1991 Gulf War. Although the negotiations it sponsored were unsuccessful they did lead indirectly to the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the attempt to witness an agreement at Camp David in summer 2000. The election of President W Bush marked a change in the level of US involvement as he was initially reluctant to get drawn into what seemed to be an irreparable situation. This has only changed as a result of the attacks in September 2001 when the US realized that the Middle Eastern question was inseparable from the war against terrorism. Month 02, Week 07: 07/06/2010 to 13/06/2010 CHAPTER 4 AIMS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS During the 3rd and 4th week of my research, I evaluated the whole issue once again. Starting from main causes and historical evolution to the peace procedure and the involvement of international community, few possible solutions or options are highlighted to settle down this burning issue. I followed the literature review and a qualitative based literature review enabled me to draw conclusions with few recommendations at my own. I first put light on the vision and priorities of the Arabs and Jews and then concluded my paper. 4.1 The Palestinians The vision of the Palestinians for a permanent peace is entombed in an independent and viable Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, to ensure both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to live together in harmony and mutual cooperation. In 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted a historic resolution calling for the implementation of applicable United Nations resolutions, particularly resolutions 242 and 338. By accepting these resolutions, the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist on 78% of historical Palestine, and that they would be allowed to establish statehood on the remaining 22%, which has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. The dilemma of Palestinian refugees has continued since 1948 without any prospect of a solution, despite the UN Resolution 194 that guaranteed the right of return for the Palestinian refugees. The Israel's demographic concerns for the return of the Palestinian refugees can be removed and the problem of resettlement or compensation can be solved if there is a good will. However, left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinian people have been living under the longest military occupation of the twentieth century and they are the only people in the world still living under foreign occupation. It is deeply felt by the Palestinians that the entire world can only watch and tolerate this domination, discrimination and humiliation. The stated objective of the Arab Authorities is to achieve a peaceful solution and it has categorically declared no degree of domination and no level of harassment can ever justify the killing of innocent civilians. Israeli government’s practices of settlement construction, home demolitions, political assassinations, and other daily humiliations make the Palestinians exhausted of the long drawn peace process. 4.2 The Israelis Because of their long history of subjugation and prosecution, the Israelis are paranoid about their future security. Their paranoia is so great that no assurances or recognitions by all Arab states are able to change their policy towards a viable independent Palestinian state in its backyard. The deliberate settlements of the Jewish people in the occupied territory and a boarder, which will allow Israel to control more land, will allegedly eliminate its fear. Israel has successfully forced its military and economic successes on Arab nations to accept her independent Jewish state (Morris, 2001). However, a UN guarantee, backed by US military support may erode their fear and persuade them to accept the past UN resolutions to give the Palestinians a viable independent state which will ultimately bring about a comprehensive peace in the region. The Israeli population desires security and prosperity and the majority accept that an independent state for the Palestinians is likely to be a condition for that in the long term. In the short term however they want a stop to the bombings that are killing their families and destroying their economy. They supported Barak’s Labor government when it seemed that negotiations were progressing towards a peaceful settlement, but the failure to find agreement and the realization that the Palestinians would not back down caused the electorate to consider less moderate options. This allowed Ariel Sharon and the Likkud party to be voted in to lead a government of national unity in March 2001. Month 02, Week 08: 14/06/2010 to 20/06/2010 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The current Israeli government has a soft corner to negotiate from a position of strength, and so far has only acknowledged the right of the Palestinians to a measure of autonomy, not full independence. Their main support is made up of the settlers; the religious rights regard any concessions to the Palestinians as the beginning of the end for the state of Israel. The Israeli moderates accept the need for compromise, acknowledge the inevitability of Palestinian independence and support a policy of negotiation. Over the years, the UN has made several attempts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, its main resolutions on the issue have not been implemented. However, a just and honorable solution of the problem must be found, as it is crucial to world peace and stability. This will not be possible without a spirit of accommodation. All the concerned parties would have to make genuine efforts to find an answer, which is not only acceptable but also workable. This framework for peace in the Middle East is more or less based on UN Resolutions. It proposes the rapid establishment of a fully demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and if implemented, has the basic ingredients of a durable solution. Based on the facts, events, and attitudes of both sides towards peace, I would see that the following recommendations would pave the way for both parties to abandon their armed actions, and favor what seems to be a more logical approach for peace efforts to be fruitful for their respective nations: (a) A thrust of confidence building measures and mutual recognition must prevail before any sort of meaningful negotiation to take place. For that to be possible Hamas would have to contribute, by adopting a fundamental change in its attitude towards Israel. (b) International interest and engagement must be maintained and it must remain balanced and unbiased. (c) The removal of the separation wall, and the settlement of the refugees’ problem by the Israelis, to reassure the Palestinians and the wider Arab world and restore the integrity of the UN. (d) International condemnation must be reinforced by action or at least the credible threat of action, by the US, and Europe who have considerable financial leverage over both the Israel and Palestinians, and by a mixture of sanctions, embargos and the selective compromise of aid, may be can force both sides to give in. (e) Both sides must be persuaded that there is no chance of peace if they continue to adopt their current strategies. Israel must be made to understand that a strategy which consists only of military action will not remove the causes of the disturbance. Similarly the Palestinians must be made to realize that continuing violence combined with demands will not lead to Israeli compliance. The belief by both sides that they can hold out or fight for a solution where the other side has to make all of the concessions is false and the failure of each side to acknowledge this is at the heart of the problem. Bibliography Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Encarta Encyclopedia, Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. http://www.webcitation.org/5kwKa1wQy. Retrieved 2007-03-04 Buzan, B (2003). Regions and Powers. Cambridge University Press Caplan, N. (2001). Zionism and the Arabs: Another Look at the ‘New’ Historiography, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36(2), pp. 345-360 http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1973/scres73.htm Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Morris, B. (2001). Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. New York: Random House. SENKER, C (2004). The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Black Rabbit Books. p.11 United States Position on Terrorists and Peace in the Middle East, Secretary Colin L. Powell, accessed 6th Nov.2005 USA Today, 2001. The Arab-Israeli conflict, 1947 - Present. World. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/mideast/timeline.htm Read More