New to the Issue
Background of the Conflict
FAQs
The background of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict provided below is the text of the study guide that accompanies the DVD, Searching for Peace in the Middle East, produced by Landrum Bolling. This concise explanation of the conflict is broken down into the following sections:
The Origins of Zionism and Israel
Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, grew out of European anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in the western, Christian world. Established in the late 19th century, its goal was a Jewish state in Palestine, the ancient Jewish homeland, where Jews could live in peace.
Zionism gained critical support when the British captured Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917. Britain proclaimed the Balfour Declaration supporting a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine and fostered Jewish immigration.
The indigenous Arabs of Palestine, who were also developing national awareness, viewed the British rulers and Jewish settlers as colonial usurpers who had come to take their land. There was serious intercommunal violence, and repeated reconciliation efforts failed.
World War II, the Holocaust, and the Creation of Israel
World War II erupted and led to the Holocaust, in which 6 million European Jews perished. After the war, neither European states nor the U.S. opened their doors to the remnant of Europe's Jews. For the Zionists, this made a Jewish state even more urgent.
Amid rising Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine, including terrorist attacks by both Jews and Palestinians, the UN called for a Jewish-Arab partition of Palestine in 1947. The Zionists agreed, but the Palestinians and the Arab states opposed it as unjust. Britain withdrew from Palestine and Israel proclaimed its independence in May 1948. War between the Zionists and Palestinian militias was joined by forces from six Arab states.
The Israeli forces, with better arms, leadership and ultimately larger forces defeated the Arabs. The creation of Israel was a triumph for the Jews after a history of suffering and victimization. But it was a disaster for the Palestinians. Most Israeli and other historians now agree that 750,000 Palestinian civilians were either forced to leave Palestine or fled in fear of their lives, becoming refugees in neighboring Arab areas. Thus, the Palestinians, who bore no responsibility for western anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, also became a victim of history.
1967 War, Israel's Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Advent of Israeli Settlements
After 1948, diplomacy to create an Arab-Israeli peace failed. Both sides developed ultra- patriotic narratives that refused to acknowledge the history and suffering of the other. The conflict became increasingly polarized. Both sides missed opportunities for peace.
In June 1967, following an Egyptian military build up, Israel invaded the Sinai, the Syrian Golan Heights, and also East Jerusalem and the West Bank that Jordan had occupied since 1948. Israel won a decisive victory. UN Security Council Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw in exchange for a negotiated peace and mutually recognized borders with the Arabs. Neither side agreed to implement 242.
Many in Israel warned that permanent occupation would foreclose peace and change Israel's Jewish, democratic character. But Israel decided to occupy and settle the conquered territories. Settlements were driven by the Israeli military for security reasons, and by a minority of messianic Jews determined to re-settle all of their ancient homeland. Through "facts on the ground," they hoped to foreclose, especially, any possibility of Arab sovereignty in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Three US Administrations - Nixon, Ford and Carter - declared the Israeli settlements in contravention of the 1949 Geneva Convention, that Israel signed and which prohibits the creation of permanent civilian settlement in occupied territories.
Stalemate, Gradual Moves Toward Peace, and the Failure of the Oslo Peace Process
After 1967, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, an exile group led by Yasser Arafat, emerged, vowing to destroy Israel and recover Palestine through armed struggle. Palestinian terrorism shocked but caught the attention of the world, such as the Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes. Egypt and Israel finally made peace in 1978 and agreed to resolve the Palestinian issue. But the latter agreement was not implemented, and settlement construction continued. Israeli and Palestinian peace advocates began a process of informal dialogue, and in 1988, the PLO, in an historic shift, abandoned armed struggle, agreed to recognize Israel and proposed a two state solution.
A Palestinian uprising in the territories in 1987-91 and renewed U.S. diplomacy led to the Madrid Conference in 1991, where Israeli and PLO officials met for the first time. This process faltered, but it prompted secret talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials that produced the Oslo Declaration in 1993.
The Oslo process committed Israel and the PLO to mutual recognition and negotiations for a peace treaty over a six year period. However, it did not define "peace" and it did not freeze the settlements. There were intensive negotiations, but both sides had different expectations and were internally divided. Settlements accelerated and the occupation became more oppressive. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, and there was growing terrorism by Palestinian radicals, following the massacre of 29 Muslims praying in a mosque in Hebron by a right-wing Israeli settler. Euphoria gave way to mutual distrust and despair.
A last ditch effort to resolve all issues at the Camp David Summit in 2000 failed amidst mutual recriminations. A second, more violent Palestinian uprising erupted spontaneously, following Ariel Sharon's provocative "walk" on Temple Mount, the site of two major mosques in Jerusalem. Israel responded with widespread military actions. Ariel Sharon, the architect of settlements, was elected Prime Minister of Israel in February 2001, vowing to crush the uprising.
In retrospect, the Summit was premature. President Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat all share the blame for its failure and the collapse of the process. Nevertheless, much conceptual progress was made during the Oslo process toward resolving final status issues of borders, security, settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees, particularly at the Taba negotiations at the end of the Clinton Administration. But wise political leadership and effective American diplomacy were either too late or missing.
Disengagement from Gaza, Separation Barrier, Palestinian and Israeli Elections
After four years of terrible violence that killed about 1,000 Israelis and over 3,000 Palestinians, Israel's resumption of a severe military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and political stalemate, Ariel Sharon, facing a costly war and a fast growing Palestinian population, withdrew 8,500 settlers from 20 settlements in Gaza. He also launched a vast "separation barrier" to prevent terrorist infiltration into Israel and to create, unilaterally, a new de facto border. The barrier, which runs along the Green line and deep into the West Bank, is also designed to annex major Israeli settlements and to cut off Arab East Jerusalem from the West Bank.
Palestinian President Yasser Arafat died in 2004. Mahmoud Abbas, who pledged non violence and renewed negotiations, succeeded him. Sharon rebuffed Abbas and renewed negotiations, which would have obliged him to compromise, in favor of unilateral action. In January 2006, Sharon suffered a debilitating stroke, and Hamas, the rejectionist Islamic party, won a majority of the seats in Palestinian parliamentary elections, although it only won about 44% of the popular vote. In March 2006, Ehud Olmert, Sharon's heir in the new Kadima party, was asked to form a new coalition government in Israel following Knesset elections. Olmert has vowed to complete the separation barrier, to withdraw an estimated 70,000 Israelis from settlements east of the barrier to reduce the number of Palestinians under Israeli governance, and, if necessary, to annex settlements west of the barrier.
The Problem and the Solution: Creating Two States
Real peace requires agreement between Israelis and Palestinians on how they will coexist in a land that it is precious to both. The only solution lies in a division of the land into two states. Neither side wants a single Jewish/Arab secular state that a few have advocated and that would almost certainly continue the conflict.
Negotiations Must Replace Unilateral Action; Israeli and Palestinians needs are Interdependent
Peace can be achieved only through negotiations and an agreement that meets the fundamental needs of both societies. Israel's basic needs are peace, security, and the recognition of its neighbors as a Jewish, democratic state. The Palestinians' fundamental need is an end to occupation and liberation in a sovereign, viable, economically sustainable state of their own with its capital in East Jerusalem.
These needs are absolutely interdependent. Violence or unilateral action by either side will not bring peace. Neither side can be defeated. But if the essential needs of each society - peace, security, and recognition for Israel as a Jewish state, and freedom and sovereignty for the Palestinians are met - both will win. If not, both face a grim future.
Settlements and the Separation Barrier: Israel's Plans are Incompatible with Two-State Peace
There cannot be an economically viable and contiguous Palestinian state without evacuation of most Israeli settlements and settlers, because the location of the settlements prevents the creation of a unified contiguous Palestinian state. In mid 2006, there are about 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank in about 127 settlements. These settlements occupy much of the best arable land and dominate underground water resources. An extensive road network connecting settlements and dedicated to exclusive use by settlers, and many military checkpoints, severely restrict Palestinian mobility, restrict economic activity and development, and impose serious poverty on almost three million Palestinians. The status quo also threatens continued Palestinian violence against Israelis, notwithstanding the barrier.
The barrier is designed, not only for security, but to annex the largest settlements. It will create, if completed, three scarcely connected Palestinian enclaves and separate many Palestinians from their lands. Even if, as Israel's new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposes, 70,000 settlers are evacuated from east of the barrier, no Palestinian leadership could accept the truncated, fragmented areas left to the Palestinians as the basis for a state and peace. An agreement and a viable Palestinian state will require much more extensive withdrawal from settlements, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and relocation of the barrier. Something should also be said about an economically viable Gaza linked to the West Bank and with a viable seaport and airport and some sort of workable arrangement that addresses Israeli security concerns.
Jerusalem is sacred to both Israelis and Palestinians. It contains the holiest Jewish sites and many of the holiest Muslim and Christian sites. Israel's capital is in West Jerusalem. East Jerusalem, where over 220,000 Palestinians live, is the Palestinian political, cultural, and economic center. A Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and agreed resolution of the status of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif area of the Old City are vital to a two state peace. Israel's plan to enclose and annex East Jerusalem with the barrier would prevent a negotiated peace, and compromise worldwide Christian and Muslim interests in the Holy City. Also, its continued demolition of Palestinian homes, who build without a permit because Israeli authorities refuse to grant them, must be stopped immediately, if further hatred and mistrust is to end.
Terrorism, Violence, and Security
Palestinian terrorism and the use of Israeli military force to impose "facts on the ground" that defeat Palestinian interests have had a devastating impact on mutual hopes for peace. An end to terrorism and mutual violence is essential to restore hope, renewed negotiations and an ultimate peace. Both sides must accept this obligation, and the new Palestinian government must support a peaceful resolution of the conflict that includes recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in order to become a partner in peace. Security guarantees will be essential to a peace agreement.
Over 4.2 million Palestinian refugees in neighboring states who fled in the 1948 and 1967 wars and their descendants demand the "right of return." Virtually all Israelis, including those willing to make major compromises, oppose the return of Palestinians to Israel, since this could threaten the character of the Jewish state. There will be no peace if the Palestinians demand a literal implementation of the right of return. Many Palestinians would accept a solution that would enable refugees to return to a new state of Palestine and/or compensation. There is no clear solution yet to this issue. But many Israeli and Palestinians believe that it is soluble in the context of a peace agreement.
Convergence of Israeli and Palestinian Public Opinion on the Ingredients for Peace
Israeli and Palestinian political leadership have failed to make peace, and their current leaderships are divided. But repeated polls in Israel and Palestine show that that the people are ahead of their leaders. Large majorities in both societies want a two state peace based on negotiations.
Israeli polls reflect disillusionment with the dream of "Greater Israel," growing opposition to settlements, and even a willingness to share Jerusalem in exchange for real peace. Palestinian majorities have repeatedly supported peace based on a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem, and some resolution of the refugee issue.
Over the past decades, intensive official and unofficial dialogues have produced detailed, tentative solutions to all major issues that meet fundamental needs of both sides. One example is the 2002 Geneva Accord, a "virtual" peace treaty negotiated by distinguished unofficial Israelis and Palestinians.
Needed: More Active American Diplomacy
Many Israeli, Palestinian, and American supporters of a two state peace believe that because of political divisions in Israel and Palestine and the failure to make peace alone, strong, sustained American mediation is needed. Moreover, many think that because former peace plans that relied on an interim, step by step "process" with no defined goal, have failed, a new approach is needed.
An American peace plan, based on formulas that Israelis and Palestinians have developed over the years for resolving through negotiations the basic issues, would likely win strong support in both societies and from Americans. If such an initiative were pursued patiently, with empathy for the basic needs of both peoples, and resolutely, it could ultimately win support from citizens and political leaders on both sides.
A peace plan of this kind would also support American national security interests in the Arab and Muslim world, where violence and terrorism against America and the West have originated in recent years. It would counteract widespread hostility against perceived weak and partisan American policy toward this conflict and the region. Renewed U.S. leadership would support America?s enduring commitment to the well being and security of Israel, whose dream of peace and character as a Jewish, democratic state is threatened by the continuation of this conflict. It would also provide hope to Palestinians for a state of their own, and redeem America?s basic commitments to justice, human rights, and freedom.
site design by silvervisiondc.com