A Two-state Solution in the Middle East - Admission/Application Essay Example

 A Jewish state in the Middle East remains a divisive and controversial subject. In 2008 Jews around the world celebrated the 60-year anniversary of the establishment of the modern Israeli state but while people around the world celebrated its birth, others not only decried the policies of the Israeli government but also challenge the very existence of the state itself. Condemned by its neighbors as an unnatural colonial implant, Israel is frequently subject to international sanction and scrutiny. The status of the Palestinian people, seemingly on the cusp of statehood not long ago, remains increasingly complex and forever unresolved. The Palestinian community has also recently been fractured by the Fatah/Hamas split, adding a new and potentially explosive dynamic to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Despite decades of attempts at resolving this conflict, we are at an impasse and without a resolution in sight. What explains the persistence of conflict for more than a century? Palestinian aspirations for statehood remain unresolved and the decision by the Arab people of Palestine to reject a partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1947 continues to resonate today. The event under analysis here will be the creation of the modern state of Israel and the subsequent statelessness of the Palestinian Arab peoples since 1948. The first component of this essay will be descriptive in nature and will discuss this event in detail. A significant portion of this essay will discuss the early history of this conflict and the ensuing ramifications. Following this, the analysis of this event will be descriptive in nature and explain why this event was selected. Specifically, what is it about this event/era that is interesting and that warrants change? Furthermore, what would the world be like if Palestinian statehood were achieved in 1947-48 and what impact would this change have on us today? Seeking to address these questions and many more with respect to the most protracted conflict in international affairs, the following explores Palestinian statehood with an eye to how a different trajectory more than sixty years ago would have changed the world. Exploring Arab intransigence and the early rejection of a two-state solution to the pending conflict, this essay now turns to an analysis of the event in question. Description of the Problem The Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains one of the most enduring and complex disputes of modern times. Although many believe that current fighting began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, historian Benny Morris traces the origin of this conflict to early Jewish settlement in the Ottoman region of Filastin (modern day Israel/Palestine) as early as 1881 – 67 years before the state of Israel was created. As such, he describes the conflict as a Zionist-Arab dispute and not solely as a problem between modern day Israelis and Palestinians (Morris, 2001). In 1948, after the horrors of the European Holocaust had emerged and it became clear that the Jewish people, after more than a millennium in exile, needed a home. This home was established to protect the Jewish people from further discrimination and threats of outright annihilation. During the period of the British Mandate, the British Government tried to negotiate an agreement between the Arab and Jewish inhabitant of modern day Israel and come to an agreement towards a two-state solution in the British mandate of Palestine. The Arabs, foreshadowing all future negotiations on the subject, were adamant that the land was theirs and would make no concessions or compromises. Although the United Nations sent a Special Rapporteur to seek a compromise one year before the creation of Israel in 1947, the Arab representatives at the time were steadfast in their refusal to accept a Jewish home in any part of Palestine Mandate. A majority of the members of the special commission recommended the establishment of two separate states (one Jewish and another Arab), with Jerusalem as a neutral international territory. Although the Jews hesitantly accepted the compromise, on the whole the Arabs rejected the UN Special Commission’s recommendations. Despite the Arab’s rejections, the UN General Assembly adopted the UN’s partition plan on November 29, 1947 (Said 1979). Arab Statelessness & the Israeli War of Independence On May 14 1948 the British Mandate came to an end and in less than 24 hours, the combined Arab armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt invaded the newly created State of Israel, threatening to annihilate the budding Jewish state. Israel’s War of Independence lasted 15 months and ended only with the Rhodes Conference establishing the Armistice agreement of 1949. During this Conference direct negotiations were conducted under UN auspices between Israel and each of the invading countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon; importantly Iraq rejected the validity of the Conference and refused to participate). After the War, Jerusalem was divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule while the Old City remained under Jordanian control. The Coastal Plain, Galilee and the entire Negev where under Israel’s sovereignty, while Judea and Samaria, regions know today as the West Bank were under Jordanian rule. Furthermore the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule and in 1949 Israel took its seat as 59th member of the United Nations. The Rhodes Conference concluded with the Arabs getting a significant area of land including the Old City of Jerusalem, and the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria. Despite this the Armistice agreement did not appease Israel’s Arab neighbors and the Palestinian people remained stateless (The Economist 2008). Despite high hopes, the Armistice agreement of 1949 failed to pave way to lasting peace and was constantly violated by both sides. Arab nations actively prevented Israel-bound ships to pass through the Suez Canal to bring goods to Israel, thus impeding important maritime traffic. In addition to the blockade of Israeli-bound ships, Arab militias made frequent incursions into Israel to commit both murder and sabotage. By October of 1956, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan signed a tripartite military alliance agreement. Following the tripartite agreement the Israeli Defense forces moved to capture Gaza and the entire Sinai Peninsula during the Suez Crisis of 1956. This occurred while the Palestinian people remained stateless and without a home to call their own. Unfortunately, Arab intransigence and the total rejection of the State of Israel have remained prominent features of the conflict since the British Mandate period. Accordingly, Palestinian statelessness has been an unfortunate feature of the conflict between Arabs and Jews for decades. Why was this event selected for analysis? Analysis The decision of the Arab community in Palestine during the British colonial period to reject a two-state solution to the problems afflicting two nationalist communities continues to resonate today. Accordingly, this decision in 1947 to reject the United Nations’ proposal for a two state solution has meant that the Palestinian people have remained homeless for more than half a century. While the national aspirations of the Jewish people in Palestine were realized in 1948, the national rights of the Palestinian people have been ignored and Palestinian statehood remains an unfulfilled dream. If I could go back in time, I would change the Arab rejection of the UN’s two-state solution proposal and would accept a free and independent Palestinian state side by side with the modern state of Israel. As a member of the delegation of leading Arab families who worked with the British government and the United Nations to secure the independence of the Palestine Mandate, I would have done many things differently. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty and in the case of the creation of the State of Israel and the ensuing statelessness of the Palestinian people, this is certainly true. Nonetheless, the remaining sections of this paper will specifically explain what could have been done differently more than sixty years ago and why this is the case (Gelvin, 2005). First and foremost, compromise as opposed to rejection should have been a feature of the Arab side during the negotiations surrounding the departure of the British during the Mandate period. Unfortunately, steadfast rejection was the way in which the leading members of the Arab side dealt with the idea of a Jewish national home in the Mandate. As we now know, this rejection has led to the occupation of the Palestinian people today and the creation of one of the largest and most displaced exile groups in the world. Palestinians today live all over the world and comprise an important global exile community. The decisions in 1947 to reject compromise have had numerous ramifications on successive Palestinian generations. Unfortunately, an unwillingness to accommodate the national aspirations of the Jewish people have resulted in an inequitable situation today. Rejection of a settlement with the Jews took many forms and many things could have been done differently. First and foremost, the Arab side could have reached out to the large and growing Jewish community in the Mandate and seek and accommodation with them. Instead of seeing the Jews as adversaries, the Arabs could have seen the Jews as allies seeking to throw off the yoke of British colonial occupation. Perhaps then, Palestinian statehood could have been achieved. Furthermore, the Arabs of Palestine could have engaged with the British authorities to ensure that their interests were represented following the departure of the colonial regime. Finally, the decision of the Arab community to reject concessions or compromises with the international community, through the United Nations effectively sealed the fate of the stateless Palestinian people. Accordingly, while the United Nations sent a Special Rapporteur to seek a compromise one year before the creation of Israel, the Arab representatives steadfastly refused to accept a Jewish home in any part of Palestine Mandate. These rejections unfortunately paved the way for Palestinian stateless for more than half a century and should have been done differently. What would have been the impacts caused by this change? (Brynen & El Rifai, 2007) There are numerous changes that would have fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and the Palestinian people. Firstly, Palestinian statehood would have been achieved more than sixty years ago and the Palestinian people would have achieved a home to call their own. While the Palestinian Diaspora community remains one of the most diverse Diaspora communities in the world, the Palestinian people have been scattered throughout the world since the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948. The world would be fundamentally different if legitimate Palestinian national aspirations were achieved if Palestinian negotiators pre-1948 accepted compromise as opposed to rejection in their dealings with the Jews of the Mandate, the British colonial authorities and the international community. The colonial era in Palestine was one in which the British authorities had to deal with two competing nationalisms and the zero-sum nature of the Arab and later, Jewish, demands for statehood in Palestine. This era was also one in which Jewish immigration to the Mandate increased extensively. Accordingly, during the Mandate period, the Jewish community in Palestine grew from 1/6th of the total population in the territory to almost 1/3rd. Between 1920 and 1945, the colonial office reports that 367,845 Jews legally immigrated into the country, significantly upsetting the demographic nature of Palestine. The colonial period was also characterized by extreme violence perpetrated by sides against each other as well as against the Mandate power (Morris 2001). After the Second World War and eager to wash its hands of the growing problems associated with a Palestinian Mandate including extreme violence on both sides of the nationalist debate and rising costs after the Second World War, the British established an independence timetable and with the new demographic balance in mind, the British began preparations to leave the Mandate in the hands of its residents. Arab rejectionism ensured that the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestiian people have gone unheeded for decades. Furthermore, the world would also have been spared many wars had the displacement of the Palestinian people enever occured. The world would have been spared conflict in 1948, 1967, 1974 and two intifadas leading to untold human casualty and suffering. Accordingly, the Palestinian people would have been spared brutal occupation at the hands of the Israeli military had things been different in 1947-48. Palestinian statehood, sought and denied for so long, would have been achieved through negotiation, as opposed to rejection, thus solving what became the most protracted conflict in world politics (Brynen 1990). Concluding Remarks Today, the Palestinian people remain stateless and without a home to call their own. Historically speaking, few places on earth share the religious importance of present-day Israel. In fact, the land of Israel/Palestine has tremendous historical significance for all three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Jews revere the Wailing (Western) Wall, as the site of the Second Temple, and modern Israel as the land of Abraham and Moses. Christians from around the world look towards Bethlehem, in the present day West Bank, as the birthplace of Christ. For Muslims the Dome of the Rock is the third holiest site in Islam (after Mecca and Medina) and is revered as the place where Mohammed ascended to heaven. And finally, the ancient city Jerusalem has held mystic sway over the “peoples of the book” (Bible/Torah/Koran) for more than two millennia (Bloom, 2005). Israel’s Arab neighbors refused to accept a two-state compromise more than sixty years ago and this historical rejection continues to have ramifications on the lives of millions of Palestinians. After more than six decades, Arab intransigence in 1947-48 remains the most important impediment to the realization of Palestinian statehood today. Unfortunately, Arab rejectionism and intransigence have been features of the conflict since the days of the British Mandate and the result is Palestinian statelessness. Arabs have consistently refused to accept a two-state compromise despite losing many military campaigns, and this rejection dates back to 1947-48. Only by accepting to compromise during the Mandate period could the future of the Palestinian people be safeguarded in a state of their own. The decision of the Arab community in Palestine during the British colonial period to reject a two-state solution continues to resonate today and by accepting the United Nation’s Partition Plan in 1947, world history would have forever been changed. Had things gone differently, legitimate Palestinian rights to national self-determination could have been secured more than sixty years ago. References Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to kill: the allure of suicide terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Brynen, R. (2000). A very political economy: peacebuilding and foreign aid in the West Bank and Gaza. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press. Brynen, R. & El Rifai, Roula. (2007). Palestinian refugees: challenges of repatriation and development. London: I.B. Taurus. Gelvin, J.L. (2005). The modern Middle East: a history. New York: Oxford University Press. Khater, A.F. (Ed.) (2004). Sources in the history of the modern Middle East. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Morris, B. (2001). Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. New York: Random House. Said, E.W. (1979). Orientalism. London: Vintage. Said, E.W. (1992). The question of Palestine. New York: Vintage. Read More