Israeli Zionism vs Palestinian National Movement - Essay Example

Israeli Zionism VS Palestinian National Movement Israeli Zionism vs. Palestinian National Movement It is a proclaimed fact that Israelis were God’s most beloved people since the early days and many Prophets were sent on this tribe for its rectification because according to the Holy Scriptures people of Israel were gullible and easily influenced by the Romans, Egyptians and Greek civilizations’ riches (Old 2002, p.124). It becomes necessary to begin the discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict with religious history as it is because of this very reason that an Israeli state could never take a concrete form. This is owing to the fact that the tribe was exiled from earth by God due to its reckless behaviour. How is the present day situation related to this piece of information is a question many critics attempt to address with great difficulty because the matter has reached complexity. After the war of 1948, Israelis outnumbered the Palestinians in Jerusalem and from here the Zionists’ intrusion into Palestinian politics started taking place. Zionism itself is a cause for which the Israelis are willing to fight for the rest of their lives (McDowall 1989, p. 146). It has been quite some time but the conflict has still not ended. There could be only one reason why this is the case. Either the Israeli Zionism has incrementally taken an extremist direction, or is it because the Palestinian nationalist movement has proved to be ineffective. After the exile Israelis settled in Babylon and Egypt; places which were rich resources and provided a better living to them as compared to the limited resources that they had in Palestine. They were however exposed to the idol worshipping nations which went against their religious tenets and it reminded them of the freedom to practice their religion back in the pre-exile era. They attempted to return to their lands only to receive hostility from the Arab world mainly the Muslims and Christians who were aware that Israel could no longer possess a land. The concept of a homeland has become a myth for the new arrivals in Palestine and totally depends upon who is representing the image of the land to the next generation. The Jews have taken over many lands and want the rest of the Palestinian population to move out of the land to seek opportunities elsewhere because they cannot and do not want any non-Israeli to work under them. Hence, removing the Arabs from their lands which they have owned ever since the Israelis were exiled has not been an easy job for the Zionists. Reconciliation has been attempted ever since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict erupted in the late nineteenth century (Pappe 2005, p. 224). When it comes to the conceptualization of the future solution of the conflict between the two nations, there is always one side of the story narrated, subject to the British, American, Israeli and UN opinions. Less is heard about the Palestinians who are the subaltern. Before 1930, the British made an attempt to create a small community for Jewish people in the land of Palestine with the intention of establishing a “joint homeland”. Surprisingly, this proposal shifted to partition of the two communities in the mid-1920s. Hence, it was when the Palestinian leadership agreed to consider the joint federative structure in 1928 that the real conflict began. This offer was refused by the Zionist leader in the first attempt but tactfully accepted in 1947 with the intention of establishing itself next to an Arab state. The reason that compelled the Zionists to demand for a partition was the rejection from the Arabs and the refusal from the Palestinian force (Pappe 2005, p. 225). After the war of 1948 erupted, a new mediator was appointed by the United Nations to propose a solution to end the conflict. Count Folke Bernadotte suggested that there should be a partition of the land into two states and Arab Palestine should be annexed to Transjordan. This seemed to be suggesting a free Arab state with Jerusalem as the capital for the Arabs, but at the same time he proposed it to be an international property. The Count was assassinated by Jewish extremists but his policy was retained by the Palestinian Conciliation Commission’s new appointed mediator. The Palestinian leadership and the Arab confrontational countries accepted the principles of negotiation but it was curbed by the intransigent David Ben Gurion’s government. Israel was rebuked by the US administration for the policies it had introduced but the Jewish lobby managed to divert this US approach in favour of the Israel’s security interests (Pappe 2005, p. 226). In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a complete silence in the arena of peace efforts and Palestinians were swept from the business-like approach towards politics. Their existence was merely that of refugees whose destiny was left in the hands of the American Cold War against the Soviet Union within the economic context (Pappe 2005, p. 226). Reviewing this phenomenon, one considers the Israeli Zionism to be responsible for undermining the Palestinian force but what really was required at the international level was a conscious effort from the Palestinians to fight for their national rights. Back in the 19th century, Palestine was a part of an Ottoman Empire. Jerusalem was under direct rule of this empire. Both Jerusalem and Bethlehem were religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. The Arabs constituted both Muslims and Christians whereas the Jews had a foreign citizenship. Until the 20th century, the prime locations that were chosen by the Jews in Palestine were the four cities that were of great religious significance. These included Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad and Tiberias. These Jews were not involved in any political activities and spent time in religious and orthodox practices while sustaining on charity of world Jewry. As opposed to these Jews, those who came from Europe desired for recognition and creation of an independent Jewish state. Hence, Zionism that is the Jewish nationalism was started by the immigrants in the 20th century (Beinin & Hajjar 2002, p.1). With the end of World War I in 1914, Jewish population in Palestine rose to 60,000 and half of these had settled only recently in this land. The Arab population was 683,000 the same year. This was a good opportunity for the Jews to continue to strive for an independent nation based on the principles of Zionism. Established in 1897 by Theodor Herzl, the World Zionist Organization aimed at founding “a home for the Jewish people secured by public law.” The Jews migrated from Germany out of Hitler’s fear in 1933. As a result more land was purchased for Jewish settlement which agitated the Palestinians and the Arabs revolted between 1936 and 1939 in order to raise their voice. They were controlled by Britain and the Zionist militia but many were killed on both sides during this violence. Hostility increased by the end of World War and the United Nations intervened to settle the matter between the Arabs and Jews. The UN made a partition plan whereby it called for a division of Palestine between the Jews and Palestinians in such a way that 56% of the area would be allotted to the Jews against 43% which would be given to the Palestinian majority, making the area of Jerusalem and Bethlehem an international locale (Beinin & Hajjar 2002, p. 4). The Zionists were keen on acquiring more than the area allotted to them but publicly they agreed to the plan. Arabs were at this point only capable of arguing the division in the first place. They believed that it was an international agenda against the wishes of the majority of Arabs. The moment the partition plan got endorsed, fighting between the Arabs and Jews restored. The Arab military forces were poorly equipped and highly unorganized as opposed to the Zionist military forces. With the evacuation of Palestine in May 1948, Israel proclaimed its state. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were most concerned to save Palestine from Israel by invading the land. The war became more intense but as a result ended in conquering of areas that were not allotted to the Jews. This was a mistake visibly made by the Arab countries and, this led to a partition of the country into three parts in 1949 with the signing of armistice agreement. Israel now owned 77% of the land. The Palestinian state under the partition plan could never be established (Beinin & Hajjar 2002, p.4). It is argued by the international community that Zionism is a “discriminatory ideology and that Israel is an inherently inequitable state”. For Israelis these are anti-Semitic arguments because Israel is condemned for owning a state or acting as an occupying power. The Oslo peace process reduced such opposition against the Zionists in hope for its fulfilment. Writers who write on the issue of Israel and Palestine have been emphasizing that it is remotely impossible for the two nations to exist side by side. There is no doubt that the Zionist movement is working its way stubbornly towards a concrete land of its own but the issue is with the existence of Palestinians who rightfully proclaim their land and do not wish to part from it for reasons equally significant for them as for the Jews. Admitting the land to be owned by everybody publicly is not the same as actually inhabiting it for the Arabs and Jews alike. The Zionism policy goes against such kind of reconciliation. It demands a land of its own with people of its own and labour of its own. This kind of imperialism is not only unjust but also ruthless with regard to humanity. However, Jews are highly successful in terms of monetary and worldly gains. They have an organized and highly sophisticated militia which has kept them secure for the past few decades now (Beinin & Stein 2006, p. 10). The kind of compromise that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has been doing for nearly three decades is the reason why it has still not reached any form of reconciliation. The tables have turned against them in their recognition as a separate state having independent rights. It seems that the only way they can attain freedom is through a reversal of events *which caused them to diminish from the face of the globe (Pappe 2004, p.196). Recognizing Israel was an overpriced compromise which the Palestinians did in 1967. Palestinians not only compromised on the partition but also accepted the “principles of land swaps” and provided the maps at Taba with a 3.1% exchange. They also accepted to demilitarize less than one fifth of their land. Palestinian state can only resolve its conflict with Israel through the Israeli withdrawal in reality from all the occupied regions including from the states which were appointed to them by Britain (Bisharah 2002, p.96). The on-going crisis between the Israelis and the Arab world indicates that the Zionist hegemony would rule the land till the end of times. Some say that the resolution to this conflict lies in the bi-national existence of the two nations without damaging any race. Arabs in general and Muslims in particular fail to see this happening because of religious and historical reasons (Reinhart 2006, p.190). Palestine deserves to receive an amending care and attention from Israel since the loss cannot be retrieved. Palestinians like any other people need to have the space to live in freedom The detracting and emotional imbalance of the national movement on the whole has led them into a state of confusion from where it is very difficult for them to rise but they are constantly trying nevertheless (Quigley 1990, p.229). The Arab world is taking the case of Israel and Palestine much too rationally and poses a threat to the Israeli forces by questioning as to why the warfare started in the first place. United States has interceded in this matter as an obligation to restore world peace but it is handling the case from where it started arbitrating and not from the origin. It is treating the Palestinians more like refugees than the natives of the land. This has complicated the matter further. Israeli Zionism has been tactful in this regard because it is fully aware of its goals and has been working towards it since more than two centuries (Peleg & Waxman 2011, p.77). Publicly, the people of Israel agree to any sort of accommodation in the land of Palestine but their main aim is to acquire the land without any other party sharing it with them. It appears that Israel has no intentions to withdraw from the borders it seized against the law of 1967 (Mahler & Mahler 2010, p.276). The city of Jerusalem is of utmost importance to both the Israeli and Palestinians alike but there is a huge gap between their aspirations concerning the status and which part of the nation it should be placed in. The Palestinian Authority demands that the city should be divided in such a way that East Jerusalem should fall under Palestinian territory while the West should be governed by Israel. However, this is contradicted by the government of Israel who do not want to see the city divided but to retain it as the capital of Israel (Harkabi 1975, p.262). This issue along with the issue of Palestinian refugees has hyped up and created wider gaps between the two nations. Who is responsible, is a question that remains unsolved because both have their claims to make. Both Israelis and Palestinians refuse to accept the solution proposed by the other. A study was done where these attitudes were assessed and tabulated as part of a series of findings. Both the nations are virtually united and adamant on their initial proposal and would not move an inch from their standing point. What the Palestinian Authorities and the people themselves fail to recognize is the growing depravity they need to encounter with the passage of time. There is little that can be done to remove the subjective approach towards the conflict (Ginat et al 2002, p. 356). From the above analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian dissent, one can conclude that it goes a long way and has its roots in history and religion. Many things are left unsaid because they require a repetition of history and the tenets of the beliefs each nation is embroidered with. The Israeli Zionism with its global contacts has managed to make a strong and organized body of control to fulfill its aim to acquire the land. Whether it is ethically sound or incorrect, that is a separate issue for the Israelis. They are aiming at gaining most of the portions to settle the Jews as planned and promised. These Jewish settlers have also suffered the crisis of immigration from one place to another and these are groups of Jews who need a separate homeland to build up an entity of their own. The politics of Israeli Zionism is also very neat. Surprisingly, the opposite was seen on the other front. Many Palestinian Arabs left their homes out of demoralization and grave confusion caused by the deprivation of proper guidance and unity amongst them owing to lack of leaders and understanding in their group (Caplan 2010, np). Sharon, the Israeli leader disappeared from the scene after occupying Gaza and he left his faithful successor to take charge of the situation. His army continues to follow the legacy of imprisoning the Palestinians, attacking on them and depriving them of the sources of sustenance by stealing their land at the West Bank and “still be hailed as the peacemaker in the Israel-Palestine conflict” (Reinhart 2006, p.143). The reason why this army is so strong and remains ever too powerful is due to the fact that they cannot imagine losing because that will mean the end of the existence of a separate nation for the Jews. But this remains unspoken of (Stoessinger 1974, p.218). The key reason why this issue remains silent is because it opens the door to examination of suppositions simultaneously given by people of other nations and religions. This is with reference to the notion the Jews carry that they are the “chosen people” who have special rights to a geographic portion of land by God, known as “the promised land” (Rabe 2010, p.210). There is a discomfort at the political level as well as the domestic level at the Palestinian front because they are not sure where this is going to lead them (Dowty 2004, p.163). The future constructed homeland has no chance to survive if the right of return is erased from its agenda. There are estimated four million Palestinian refugees who need to be settled and employed for living. The principle cannot proceed without dealing with the solution practically taking into consideration “demography, economy, cultural inclinations and above all fears” (Pappe 2005, p.232). Pappe concludes in these remarkable words indicating that there is a dire need to talk at the level of humanity and not in industrial and mechanical terms. One critical point that the Israelis need to recognize is that whatever solution they derive after decades of long war between the two nations is how the final solution would appear on the international law front as well as the moral ground for the future generations to judge. This means making amends for the wrong done as a whole nation to capture the land through unjust means and accommodating all the refugees along with the Jewish settlers. The decision needs to be pragmatic and the realities need to confront the whole world instead of being swept under the rug. There is no doubt, and the Holy Scriptures prove that the Israelis or the Jews were the chosen people because they were the most beloved of God. They were also exiled afterwards because of God’s wrath and the right of possessing the land was taken away from them (Rabe 2010, p.165). However this does not explain the behavior of the Zionist movement at any point in time no matter what their foundation aspirations were. Palestinians have suffered greatly at the hands of the Israeli forces because they have been naïve throughout most of the political moves that have been taken to resolve the issue. However, killing people and evacuating the land is surely not a means to regain the lost possession. There must be an alternative to this plan. But the problem is with the opposition as well. The Jews were treated poorly from all the fronts during their downfall. This is merely a reaction to prove that they have power to return. Palestinians today need to unite as a national movement to peacefully gain their rights in order to settle their women and children without bloodshed. International efforts as well as cooperation form the Palestinian as well as the Israeli front is crucial for solving this matter which has been in existence since decades. Bibliography BEININ, J., & STEIN, R. L. (2006). The struggle for sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005. Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press. BEININ, J., HAJJAR, L. & MIDDLE EAST RESEARCH & INFORMATION PROJECT.(2002). Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict a primer. [Washington D.C.], Middle East Research and Information Project. BISHĀRAH, M. (2002). Palestine/Israel: peace or apartheid : occupation, terrorism, and the future. London, Zed Books CAPLAN, N. (2010). The Israel-Palestine conflict: contested histories. Chichester, U .K., Wiley-Blackwell. DOWTY, A. (2004). Critical issues in Israeli society. Westport, Conn, Praeger. GINAT, J., PERKINS, E. J., & CORR, E. G. (2002). The Middle East peace process: vision versus reality. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press HARKABI, Y. (1975). Palestinians and Israel. New York, Wiley MAHLER, G. S., & MAHLER, A. R. W. (2010). The Arab-Israeli conflict: an introduction and documentary reader. London, Routledge. MCDOWALL, D. (1989). Palestine and Israel: the uprising and beyond. Berkeley, University of California Press. OLD, H. O.(2002). Worship: Reformed according to Scripture. Louisville, Ky, Westminster John Knox Press PAPPE, I. (2005). The Post-Territorial Dimensions of a Future Homeland in Israel and Palestine. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 23, 224-233. PAPPÉ, I. (2004). A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. PELEG, I., & WAXMAN, D. (2011). Israels Palestinians: the conflict within. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. QUIGLEY, J. B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Durham, Duke University Press. REINHART, T. (2006). The road map to nowhere: Israel/Palestine since 2003. London, Verso. RABE, J. (2010). Through the lens of reality: thoughts from a maturing grandpa. Minneapolis, MN, Two Harbors Press. STOESSINGER, J. G. (1974). Why nations go to war. New York, St. Martins Press Read More