The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Essay Example

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Affiliation: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-running conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis fighting over territory. The two groups in the conflict dispute the ownership of land. The Jewish Israeli ancestors began migrating from some parts of Europe to the disputed land in 1880s because of anti-Semitism. The Palestinian Arabs were the indigenous inhabitants of the land. The conflict dates back to 1918 when Britain gained control of Palestine from Ottoman Empire towards the end of the First World War. The British renamed the region British-mandate Palestine. In 1937, the British government formally proposed the partition of the area into two countries belonging to the Arabs and the Jewish. The success of the plan would involve resettling Palestinian Arabs outside the proposed Jewish state. The British government, which was controlling the area, did not implement the proposal. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) proposed the partition of British-mandate Palestine into two separate countries belonging to the Arabs and Jews. Neighboring Arab states rejected the idea. Fighting broke out between the Arabs and Jews. Zionist movement military, a Jews militia group, expelled the Arabs from proposed Jews area so that they could establish a new state of Israel (Am. Documentary 2001) In 1948, the Zionist leaders proclaimed the state of Israel sparking war between the newly-formed state and its Arab neighbors. Israel later reached an agreement with Jordan and Egypt. Jordan and Egypt took control of West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively. The UN General Assembly voted on a resolution concerning the Palestinian refugees displaced by the war. The resolution advocated for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes or compensation for those who wished not to return. Israel, however, failed to achieve the UN General Assembly’s resolution. Skirmishes between Israel and Palestinians broke out from there onwards up to 1967. In 1964, the Arab League passed a resolution calling for the unity of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza strip. The Palestinians then founded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and laid down strategies of the structure of the Palestine National Council (PNC). In 1967, a war broke out between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The war lasted for six days. Israel captured Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula. Israel later decided to return Sinai Peninsula to Egypt as part of a peace agreement. Israel, however, annexed East Jerusalem (part of West Bank) and the Golan Heights. In 5th June 1967, the UN Security Council passed a resolution, UNSC 242, which called Israeli to withdraw its security forces from occupied Palestinian territories. The resolution also called for the respect for territorial integrity in the area (Greenberg and Keinan, 1967). In September 1972, Palestinian gunmen killed eleven Israeli athletes who were participating in Munich Olympics. In October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces occupying Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. Another war, which lasted for three weeks, broke out between Israelis and the attackers. The UN Security Council responded quickly by passing a resolution, UNSC 338. The resolution advocated for ceasefire between Israel and Palestinians and commencement of peace negotiations in line with the 1967 UNSC resolution 242. From 1978 to 1981, Israel and its Arab neighbors negotiated the first peace process in the region. The process led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In 1987, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation began in Gaza and West Bank. The uprising involved strikes, demonstrations, and violence. Israel responded by unleashing security forces on the streets, arresting demonstrators, closing universities, and deporting some Palestinian demonstrators. The uprising, however, continued for six years. In December1988, the PLO leader Yasser Arafat recognized Israel and condemned all acts of terrorism. The US in turn pledged more commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Jordan also renounced all territorial claims on West Bank. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution, UNGA 53/196, which called for the respect of rights of Palestinians and Syrians in Golan Heights. The resolution also advocated that Israel should not exploit mineral resources in the occupied Golan Heights. The recognition of Israel, however, angered some Palestinians in Gaza Strip. They formed a militia movement known as Hamas that opposed Israeli-occupation of Arab land (Am. Documentary 2001) In 1991, the US and Soviet Union sponsored a peace conference in Madrid, Spain. The organizers of the conference intended to encourage Arab countries bordering Israel to sign peace treaties with Israel. The conference eventually made Jordan sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. In 1993, Israel and PLO held peace talks in Oslo, Norway. The talks led to mutual recognition of both sides. Israel recognized PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians and PLO in turn recognized the existence of Israel as a state. Israel also agreed to withdraw its force from West Bank and Gaza Strip. PLO then got the mandate to establish a transitional authority in West Bank. Hamas condemned the move and began to carry out series of suicide bombings in Israel. The two sides, however, did not implement the Oslo peace agreements. In 2003, Israel constructed a separation wall in the occupied territory of West Bank. In doing so, Israel confiscated land belonging to Palestinians to pave the way for the construction. Israel destroyed Palestinian properties that were lying along the sections where the wall would pass. In August 2005, Israel made a unilateral decision to disengage Gaza Strip. It withdrew its troops from Gaza Strip and evacuated thousands of its citizens from the area. Israel also relocated some of its nationals from the West Bank. Israel, however, maintained control of its borders with Gaza Strip, Gaza coastline, and airspace. In 2007, Gaza Strip held historic elections in which Hamas won. Hamas took control of the territory prompting Israel to close all the Gaza border crossings. The closure limited the supply of food, medicine, and other supplies to Gaza. There have been other peace talks between Israel and Palestinians since 1993. The talks have made insignificant progress towards the attainment of a lasting solution. In 2008, Israel invaded Gaza Strip killing several Palestinians in a security operation against Hamas. The move stalled the peace talks that were going on in the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Historical factors that contribute to the conflict There are three major historical factors that have significantly contributed towards the trend in which the conflict has taken. The first part is the indigenous versus migrant view of identity. The second factor is violence. The third major factor is the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The idea of indigenous versus migrant view of identity dates back to 1880s when Jews began migrating to Palestine. It was anti-Semitism that forced most of them to migrate from Europe to Palestine. Some of the Jews who were already living alongside the Arabs used to get better treatment than their counterparts in Europe. The Palestinians welcomed them because they considered it justifiable under Islamic law. The Palestinians, therefore, consider themselves as an indigenous people and view the Jews as hostile migrants. Their idea is that the migrants have encroached on an Arab land and forcibly displaced them. On the other hand, the Jews consider Israeli territory as a God-given land and that they have the right to exist there. Both Israelis and Palestinians, therefore, claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of the disputed land. Israelis, however, do not dispute that the Palestinians were part of the indigenous populations. The second historical factor that has contributed to the conflict is violence. Violence had existed from as early as 1918 when Britain took control of the area. Frequent confrontations between the Jews and Arabs resulted in deadly clashes. The clashes would involve the destruction of property and loss of lives. Such violence prompted the British to propose the division of the area in 1937. The violence has caused mistrust between the two sides. The third major historical factor is the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The Zionists managed to do so by displacing and forcefully evicting Palestinians from their homes within the proposed Israeli territory. Most of the displaced Palestinians became refugees in Gaza and the West Bank. The UN General assembly demanded that Israel should consent the refugees to return to their homes. The UN also resolved that Israel should compensate the refugees who never wanted to return (Greenberg and Keinan 1967). Economic factors There are three economic factors that are considered to affect the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are Israeli superiority, large economic gap between Israel and Palestine, and low performance of Palestinian economy. Each of these factors is separately examined below in details. The Israeli superiority, in terms of its economy, gives it an added advantage over its opponent. Israel can finance its military adequately. In recent years, Israel has significantly allocated enormous resources to its defense forces. Consequently, the defense force has expanded its influence in Israeli politics. If the defense force has a greater role in politics, it is likely to halt any peace process. On the contrary, the Palestinians do not have a well-organized defense force. Instead, they have disorganized militant factions fighting one another. Israel, therefore, gets a loophole to dominate and suppress the helpless Palestinians (Barqawi n.d) The low performance of the Palestinian economy is another factor contributing to the conflict. Israel has closed its border crossings to Palestinian Territories. The closure has restricted the movement of people and supplies to Gaza and West Bank. The Palestinian economy has, therefore, failed as a result of Israeli restrictions. The table below provides the comparisons of Israel and Palestine economic indicators in recent years. Gross Domestic Product (million current US $) Year Israel Palestine 2011 32,305 2,376 2010 29337 2,076 Source: UNdata Exports (million current US $) Year Israel Palestine 2009 47934.6 558.4 Imports (US$) 2009 47362.7 3568.7 Source: UNdata It is clear and flawless from the two tables that Israel is superior to Palestine. The two economies do not compare favorably. It is impossible to implement any lasting peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis because of the nature of economic dominance. The future of peace in the region, therefore, lies mainly on the willingness and commitment of Israelis. Strategic factors fuelling the conflict There are three notable strategic factors that have contributed significantly to the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are divisions within the international community, Palestinian leadership, and the sovereignty of Israel. The international community contributed to the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First, the Arab nations have failed to involve themselves constructively in finding lasting solutions to the conflict. Their significant contribution to the peace process was the recognition of Palestine as an independent Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital. They also offered Israel pan-Arabian recognition in return for withdrawing from territories occupied in the 1967 war. Critics argue that these were not new ideas because Palestinians had already demanded Israeli withdrawal in the past (Barqawi n.d) Second, the involvement of US and EU in the conflict has stalled the peace process rather than moving it forward. The US and EU failed to recognize Hamas when it won elections in 2006. The two Western powers consider Hamas as a terrorist organization. Analysts consider the move as biased because it contradicts the opinion of Palestinians in Gaza who brought Hamas to power. The US has actively participated in previous peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians by taking the central role of mediation. Critics argue that Israel is an ally of the US, thus, the US would be a biased mediator (Barqawi n.d). Third, Hamas has pledged ties with Lebanon’s militant group, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a bitter enemy of Israel in the region. It fought with Israel in 2006, in a one-month-long war. The war ended with casualties on both sides and massive destruction of property. The collaboration between Hamas and Hezbollah has angered Israel. Hamas has received funding as a result of the collaboration (Greenberg 2007). Israel fears that when Hamas receives external funding, it will launch deadly terrorist attacks against Israelis. Another factor that has contributed to the development of the crisis is the Palestinian leadership. The leadership itself is deeply divided. The divisions arose in 1988 when PLO recognized Israel. Palestinians in Gaza Strip formed Hamas, a militia movement that opposed an Arab-recognition of Israel. Currently, there is little hope of Fatah reconciling with Hamas. Fatah has actively participated in peace talks with Israel. Its rival, Hamas, has rejected any negotiations with Israel and demand complete dissolution of Israel as a state. Any significant future peace negotiations, therefore, depends on the unity of the two Palestinian political factions. If Fatah solely negotiates and end to the conflict with Israel, then implementation of any resolution reached would become another challenge. The sovereignty of Israel is the third major factor that has immensely contributed to the development of the conflict. Some Palestinians do not recognize the existence of Israel. The issue of negotiating peace and rejecting Israeli sovereignty is a contradiction. It is like negotiating border disputes with a friend and at the same time question the existence of that friend. Palestinians should, therefore, unilaterally accept Israel as a sovereign state so that meaningful peace negotiations can take place. Hard-line Islamists like the Hamas should adopt moderate ideas while taking part in peace talks. Cultural factors Israelis are predominantly Christians while majority of Palestinians are Muslims. The two religions have contributed significantly to the delay of the Israeli Palestinian peace process. The two sides use religious views to claim rightful ownership of the country. Both the Christian and Islamic reasoning and understanding justify each side’s case. The Jews and the Arabs claim the land in dispute is God-given. Any solution of dividing the area into two, therefore, may appear unjust from a religious view. Some Palestinian Islamic militants resort to using force in an attempt to destroy the state of Israel. The Israelis in turn retaliate by cracking down heavily on the militants. In politics, the two sides have different systems. The Israeli is more organized than the Palestinian. There is a parliamentary democracy in Israel. Its populations elect their leaders. Multi-party democracy exists. The only challenge they face is that their military is deeply involved in the country’s politics. The involvement has made the military almost incontrollable. In some situations, the military do not take orders from the Prime Minister. The partial mutiny has complicated the peace process with Palestinians. The political arena in Palestinian Territories is much different. Since its inception until 1988, there was only one political movement centered on PLO. Scholarly views on the conflict Scholars like Leanne Gale, Jacob Tsur, and Mark Tessler view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a National Conflict paradigm. They argue that both Jews and Arab liberation movements have aspirations of achieving self-determination. The cause of the conflict, thus, is a clash between the two distinct national movements that are interested in self-determination. The conflict can, therefore, end if Israelis and Palestinians exist as two separate nations. Israelis and Palestinians should, therefore, divide the disputed land. There are other three possibilities that can also bring the conflict to an end. First, either Israel or Palestine should vanquish the other. Second, Israel and Palestine should form a bi-national state where the Jews and Arabs co-exist as one country. Third, the two national movements should transform into political movements within one nation (Gale 2013). Scholars like George Antonius and Edward Said view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a Colonial model. Zionists (Israelis) are the colonizers while Palestinians are the colonized. When analyzing this colonial design, ‘Zionism’ is preferred over ‘Israeli’ because it distinguishes an abstract idea from a living person. The term ‘conflict’ is also avoided when referring to the Israeli-Palestinian relationship because conflict refers to the struggle between two sides. The scholars argue that there is no conflict between the Zionists and Palestinians. Instead, there is domination and oppression. The Zionists dominate the Palestinians. The scholars also argue that, before 1948, the present day Israel was a colonial settler-state. Zionists came up with colonial motive and decided to displace or expel the indigenous people (Gale 2013). The scholars supporting the colonial model of Israeli-Palestinian conflict propose the decolonization of Palestine. Israel, thus, should give up its colonial ambitions. A group of scholars that include Uri Davis, Noam Chomsky, and Ilan Pappe views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an Apartheid paradigm. The scholars view the Zionists as settler colonialists who have instituted a racist regime that has dominated the indigenous Palestinians. In other words, this apartheid model is like an internal colonial system going on within the land disputed by Israelis and Palestinians. The minority ruling class has become authoritative because it is interested in maintaining its exclusivity. Some scholars have compared the Zionists and Palestinian version of apartheid with that of South African. In South Africa, apartheid ended with a rainbow country. The indigenous black Africans have integrated the White minority group into one nation. It is likely that the Israeli-Palestinian version of apartheid will end by Israel integrating into one state with Palestine. There is also another possibility of a much different outcome. The apartheid may end by Palestine and Israel both agree to establish two states (Gale 2013). Scholars like Thomas Mitchell, Ian Lustick, Rashid Khalidi, and Derek Penslar the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a combination of National and Colonial models. Nationalism and colonialism aspirations of Israelis are fused together. Scholars supporting this model agree that elements of colonialism and nationalism exist in the Israeli-Palestinian relations. When Jews migrated to Palestine, they did not have colonial intentions in mind. After establishing the state of Israel, their actions began conforming to those of colonialists. From an analytical point of view, the Jews migrated to Palestine because they wanted to create an Israeli state. Unfortunately, they ended up colonizing Palestinians. It can also be argued that the Zionists migrated to Palestine and used colonial strategies to fulfill their national aspiration of an Israeli state (Gale 2013). The most likely outcome The most likely outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two state solution. A new state of Palestine will exist alongside Israel. East Jerusalem will form the capital of the new state. The Israelis will return the occupied Palestinian lands in West Bank. The Palestinians will in turn recognize Israel. They will also cease all hostilities against the Jews. Such a settlement of the conflict is possible because of the altering attitude of the US towards the peace process. The US is currently interested in reaching a final resolution to the conflict. References American Documentary. (2001 December). History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. American Documentary. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from http://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/pdf/promiese/promises-timeline.pdf Barqawi, A. (n.d). The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Leaders, Domestic Factors, and International Actors. Social Sciences. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from http://socialsciences.uottawa.ca/sites/default/files/public/eng/documents/20131_3_eng_a.barqawi.pdf Gale, L. (2013, April 19). What is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? Establishing a Deterministive Link between the Nature of the Conflict and Its Resolution. Sigma Iota Rho Journal. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from http://sirjournal.org/2013/04/19/what-is-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-establishing-a-determinative-link-between-the-nature-of-the-conflict-and-its-resolution/ Greenberg, R. and Keinan, A. (2007 July). The Present Past of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israeli Archeology in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The S. Daniel Abraham Centre for International and Regional Studies. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/abraham/publications/israeli_archaeology.pdf Read More