The Elusiveness of Arab and Israeli Peace Process - Research Paper Example

Why is the Arab/Israeli peace process elusive? The Arab/Israeli conflict can be traced back to 1947 when the United Nations divided Palestine into two communities that include the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. However, the Jews were mostly immigrants fleeing persecution to settle where they regarded as their historical homeland. On the other hand, the Palestinians regarded themselves as the indigenous residents. This division has led to numerous conflicts between the two communities each claiming right to the land where they reside. The Jewish State of Israel was created in 1948, and the neighbouring Arab states were discontent with the creation of Israel as an autonomous State. This later resulted in an intergroup conflict and afterwards, an interstate war. However, the war ended in 1949 after Israel signed a peace treaty with four Arab states that included Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (Nets-Zehgnut 108). Conversely, the Palestinians were not part of the peace treaty signed in 1949. Most of them fled their homes and became refugees in other Arab states. Due to the hostile relationship between a number of Arab states and Israel, conflicts have continued to emerge because of the perceived Israeli occupation of Arab land. As a way of fighting for their rights, the Palestinians formed PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) after the first intifada. Since then, numerous peace negotiations have taken place to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict. However, on the other hand, both sides have continued to derail the peace process (Nets-Zehgnut 115). This paper examines why the Arab/ Israel peace process has been elusive. Lack of give and take in the peace negotiation process Among the reasons why the Arab/Israeli peace has been elusive is because both sides are not ready to cede ground and hold defiant positions. The lack of compromises by both sides has continued to derail peace process because both sides consider their claims as genuine. Israel, for instance, is not ready to give up the territories claimed by the Palestine. As a result, Palestine is also setting conditions for peace negotiations that Israel continues to reject from time to time. The peace process has also been elusive because, rather than embrace a diplomatic process, one side is resorting to violence in the pretext of fighting for a just cause. In such an environment, both sides have turned aggressive, and no one is willing to come to the negotiating table to make compromises as a way forward to finding a lasting solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict (Slater 178). Further, while the State of Israel wants other Arab states to recognize its legitimacy, this has not been the case as Israel continues to face denunciation by most of its neighbouring Arab states in the Middle East such as Iran and Syria. The territories claimed by Palestinians that has instigatedthe escalation of the conflict in recent times include the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. However, Israel eventually withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 but continues to build settlements in other territories that are deemed illegal by many states across the Middle East. As a result, the Palestinian Authority has made it as a condition that Israel withdraws from the remaining occupied territories before the peace process can resume. However, Israel is reluctant to cede ground and continues to build more Jewish settlements in the presumed occupied Palestinian territories (Slater 181). The Arab/Israeli conflict hinders peace process because the lack of good will on both sides to cede ground with regard to finding an amicable solution to the land question. Most Arab states supporting the Palestinian authority often takes a defiant position against the State of Israel, and some have gone to the extreme of claiming that the State of Israel should be wiped out of the map. Israel feels it has the right to their historical land and should be recognized by other Arab states as a legitimate and autonomous State in the Middle East. Some countries in the Arab world such as Egypt for instance recognize the right of the Jewish State to exist in the Middle East while countries such as Iran and Syria have completely severed their relationship with Israel and continue to support militant groups that have impacted negatively on resolving the Arab/Israeli conflict (Khoury 68). The idea of a two-state resolution where both Palestinians and Jews live together has continued to be thwarted by ideological differences influenced by political inclinations and religion in the Middle East. The political leadership in the Arab world and on the side of Israel is under pressure from the people they represent not to cede grounds because both sides tend to perceive each other as enemies and as such, the idea of making compromises is unacceptable by both sides (Slater 186). The Hamas question The rise of Hamas into leadership of the Palestine has also contributed to the derailment of the peace process. For instance, Israel and other world powers such as the United States view Hamas as a terrorist group. As a result, Israel claims it is not ready to hold peace talks with a terrorist group and continues to engage the group led by Mahmoud Abbas. However, the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas has been weakened by the rise of Hamas who now consider themselves as the legitimate group fighting for the Palestine cause (Khoury 70). Over the years, Israel and other key peace negotiators have ignored Hamas and continued to engage Mahmoud Abbas-led group in the peace talks. The Palestinian President so far has not been able to broker a peace deal with Israel because of interference by the Hamas, who are pressuring the Palestinian Authority not to cede ground in the peace talks. Hamas strength in the region has also progressed due to support from states fighting a proxy war with Israel such as Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah group. As a result of the support, Hamas has acquired more resources and taken control of the Gaza Strip. For peace talk to proceed, the Abbas government that now includes the Hamas political wing needs to talk in one voice when tabling their part of the bargain in the peace talks. The rivalry between Hamas and the Abbas-led group makes it difficult for the recognized authority in Palestine to develop a roadmap to provide directions during the peace negotiations (Khoury 71). Intifada The uprising by Palestinians against the Israeli occupation has contributed to the emergence of militants, and this has derailed the peace process from time to time. Both sides have walked out from the peace talks on numerous occasions because of the escalation of violence. Every time Israel is attacked by rockets from the Gaza Strip, the response in most cases often turn catastrophic for the Palestinians with heavy causalities for civilians. The disproportionate response by Israel has only contributed to the infiltration of more arms into the Gaza Strip to sustain the Intifada. Other countries are also financing the militant groups fighting the Israeli government, and this hinders peace process because Israel feels threatened by the continued arming of militants with an intention to destroy the State of Israel (Casertano 72). In a number of occasions, Israel has threatened stern action against Arab states sympathising with militants in the Palestinian held territories. As such, the conflict threatens to spill to other countries in the Middle East. On another note, Israel on its part is adamant that it cannot negotiate with the Palestinian Authority unless militant groups stop firing rockets on civilian settlements in territories occupied by the State of Israel. Due to the rise of militants in the Palestinian held territories, Israel has continued to carry out the assassination of individuals perceived to be a threat. As a result, the assassinations approved by the Israeli government also impact negatively on the peace process to end the Arab/Israeli conflict (Casertano 74). The rise of Iran’s influence in the Middle East The rise of Iran’s influence in the Middle East also appears to derail the peace process because of interference in the Palestine/Israeli conflict. Iran has failed from time to time recognize the Jewish State of Israel and appears to be fighting a proxy war with Israel. On the other hand, Israel views Iran as a threat to its existence and has accused Iran of supporting militant groups in the Palestinian occupied territories. Further, the political pressure from Tehran makes it difficult for the Palestinian Authority to engage Israel in a give and take peace talks. The hard stance taken by Palestinian negotiators appears to have support from Tehran. Conversely, Iran’s influence in the Middle East at present appears necessary in ending the Arab/Israeli conflict. However, this will only depend on Israel and Iran’s commitment to work together, to find a solution of the Palestinian question (Klein 48). Washington policies in the Middle East The Washington policies in the Middle East also to an extent appear to impact negatively on the peace process. Most of the Arab states claim Washington is using double standards in the peace process meant to end the Arab/Israeli conflict. Washington needs allies in the Middle East, and this makes it difficult for impartiality to prevail in the peace talks meant to end the Arab/Israeli conflict. For example, Israel is a key ally of the United States and does not want to be seen not to protect Israeli interests (Shavit 29). On the other hand, Washington has remained quiet regarding the use of excessive force in the Palestinian held territories by the Israeli military. As such, most Arab states are not convinced about the United States commitment to resolving the Arab/Israeli conflict. In addition, the barring of the Hamas political wing in the peace talks also impacts negatively on the peace process. Similar like Israel, Washington and other key allies in the West regard Hamas as a terrorist group and as such, are not ready to engage them in peace negotiations. However, it is important for Washington to consider the inclusion of the Hamas political wing in the peace talks meant to end the Arab/Israeli conflict. It is almost impossible for the peace talk to yield any result without the inclusion of the Hamas political wing that appears to be more popular among the Palestinians at the moment compared to President Mahmoud Abbas-led group (Shavit31). Conclusion The peace process to end the Arab/Israeli conflict has been elusive due to the changing of positions by the negotiating parties in the conflict. Each group tends to come to the negotiating table with their demands and is not ready to compromise in a give and take peace process. The emergence of other groups such as Hamas militant group has also impacted negatively on the peace process. In addition, Iran’s influence in Palestine also appears to affect the peace process due to the support they provide to various militant groups in Palestine. On the other hand, Israel is not willing to leave the remaining occupied territories and continues to build more settlements which are a key reason for the escalation of the Arab/Israeli conflict. The United States on its part needs to play an impartial role in leading the peace process to end the Arab/Israeli conflict. In addition, Washington needs to consider the inclusion of Iran and Hamas political wing in the peace process due to their current influence in the Palestinian question. Works Cited Casertano, Stefano. Broken peaces.World Affairs 177.5 (2015): pp. 69-74. Khoury, Saman. Obstacles to a peace agreement.Palestine-Israeli Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture 19.3 (2014): pp. 67-71. Klein, Joe. The path to peace. Time 185.1 (2015):pp. 44-50. Nets-Zehgnut, Rafi. The Israeli and Palestinian Collective Memories of Their Conflict: Determinants, Characteristics, and Implications.Brown Journal of World Affairs 20.2 (2014): pp. 103-121. Shavit, Ari. A new and plausible plan for peace.New Republic 244.27 (2014): pp. 28-31. Slater, Jerome. What went wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Political Science Quarterly 116.2 (2001): pp. 171-199. Read More