The Palestinian - Israeli Conflict: Ending the Endless War
April 25, 2007Stephen D. Hayes
The Palestinian - Israeli conflict has now been waged for more than half a century. In fact, depending one’s reading of events in the region in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it can be argued that the struggle has gone on for more than a hundred years. The problem seems intractable, with a solution always just beyond reach.
But a solution is unlikely to be found by the parties themselves because of their internal divisions and weak leadership. Only the United States has both the requisite influence over Israel and the ability to move the Palestinians toward a lasting settlement.
Some American administrations, such as those of Nixon, Carter, President George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, have engaged in serious Middle East peace diplomacy. They made progress, but the core Israeli-Palestinian issue still festers. Other presidents, such as Johnson, Reagan and, President George W. Bush have not made Arab-Isreali peace a priority.
If an American president recognizes that it is truly in America’s interest that the conflict end and determines to make the necessary political investment, bold action will be required using a strategy of ‘beginning at the end’, discussed here later. Before turning to a ‘beginning at the end’ approach, let’s begin at the beginning with a consideration of perspective and history.
Given our leadership role in the world and in the Middle East, we Americans have a special responsibility to understand the history of the region, the origins of the conflict AND the perspectives of peoples on both sides. I concentrate below on the perspective of the Palestinians because that is the piece of the puzzle least understood by the American public. We don’t have to like it. We don’t have to agree with all of it. But if we are going to be productively engaged in that part of the world, we had better fully understand it.
Through a Palestinian Lens
The average American thinks of Israel as a small, heroic nation that has been under almost constant siege by hostile Arab neighbors. We tend to view Israel as a peace loving democracy that has usually been the aggrieved party in this conflict. While focusing on the histori tragecy of the Jewish people, have too often ignored or misunderstood the Palestinian perspective, which is no less important.
To see Palestine and Israel the way the Palestinians do, one must start at the beginning….before the establishment of the State of Israel, before World War II…before World War I.
During the latter years of the 19th century, Jewish leaders in Europe began thinking and writing and organizing around the concept of a “homeland” for the Jewish people. In 1901, one of those leaders, Israel Zwangwill, published The Return to Palestine and described the designated territory as “A land without a people for a people without land.” This catchy phrase ---- implying that Palestine was unpopulated and available for the taking --- became a popular rallying cry for the Zionist movement.
The claim that Palestine was a “land without a people” was false.
Population estimates prior to 1900 are not precise. But it is fairly well documented that by the mid 1800s, there were several hundred thousand people living in “the Holy Land”, or Palestine, of which less than 7% were Jews. (1) A British post-World War I census, conducted in 1922, showed a population (in the area that is now roughly modern day Israel and the occupied territories of the West bank and Gaza) of more than 750,000 consisting of the following:
Jews – 83,790
Christians – 71,464
Muslims - 598, 177 (2)
Palestine was therefore hardly a “land without a people” since the overwhelming majority of the Christians were Arabs and almost 90% of the total population was Arab. So it is critical to understand, that as Palestinian Arabs look back at their own recent history they see a Palestine where Jews, Muslims and Christians all lived, but where Muslims were the overwhelming majority.
Between 1905 and 1935, more than 230,000 Jews moved into Palestine from Europe, Russia and other parts of the world. Specific Jewish immigration into Palestine during this period was:
1905-1914 30,000
1919-1924 37,000
1924-1928 70,000
1932 9553
1933 30,327
1935 61,854 (3)
The rise of Nazism and the increasingly desperate situation of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s propelled this wave of immigration. But the Palestinians had no involvement in the gathering storm in Europe and saw the massive influx of Jews as unwarranted and unwanted.
In the mid-1930s, Palestinian Arabs urged Britain, which controlled Palestine, to stop the Jewish immigration. Instead, Britain increased authorized immigration by 10% and the Jewish population grew to 300,000.
Yet despite the heavy foreign influx of Jews, they were still less than 25% of the total population. And as late as 1948, only 6.6% of the land in Palestine was owned by Jews. (4) As the number of immigrants grew, tensions and conflicts understandably rose. The arrival of additional immigrants continued through the 1930’s, swelling with the rise of the Nazi era in Germany, into the 1940’s and during and after World War II. In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War with it’s ghastly saga of the Holocaust, the stream of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was seen by most of the outside world as a just and deserving reward for a downtrodden and persecuted people. But in the eyes of the Palestinians, who had little knowledge of and no responsibility for Naziism, rising Jewish immigration was a virtual invasion by outsiders of their land, homes, villages and towns.
International support for the Zionists was based on the Balfour Declaration issued by the United Kingdom in 1917 and that was later incorporated into the Versailles Peace Treaty. The Balfour declaration called for a “homeland’ for the Jewish people. But a much ignored passage of the text stated also stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities living in Palestine.” Palestinian Arabs fought the imposition of a Jewish colony in the midst of their own homeland, where they were a clear majority. For years, they took solace in believing that their “rights” would be protected. But this promise was violated, since until the very end of the British era, London favored the interests of the Zionists at the expense of the Palestinians.
As a nation, Israel was born from bloody conflict. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, one of the early leaders of the right wing of the Zionist movement, said, “(The) only way to liberate the country (that is, Palestine) is by the sword.” (5) And indeed, modern Israeli historians have confirmed that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed from what they regarded as their historic homeland, or fled in fear of their lives. Through the eyes of a Palestinian Arab, then, the creation of Israel was and continues to be regarded as a gross injustice.
With this history as a backdrop, it is not difficult to see why Palestinians and other Arabs view the fighting throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Six-Day War of June 1967, the 1973 Yom Kippur War and all the subsequent conflicts as honorable struggles to redress this injustice.
The aftermath of one of those wars, in June 1967, deepened the conflict. As a result of their smashing military victory, Israel took control of even more land, including Gaza and the West Bank. Historians differ on whether Israel or the Arabs were responsible for not making peace after 1967, but Palestinians regarded this as another grave injustice.
In the early decades of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, Israeli leaders, seeking to justify their national claim to all of Palestine, worked to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and even Palestinians’ identity as a people. Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked in 1969 that, “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people…..They did not exist.” (6) It was not until the beginning of the issuance of the Oslo Declaration of Principles in 1993 that Israel formally acknowledge the PLO and the Palestinian national movement and that would require reconciling their respective claims for the land they shared.
Although most, but not all Palestinian leaders, now recognize the need for a territorial compromise and a two state peace based on the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied in 1976, all Palestinians continue to see themselves as victims of a long and severe military occupation and conquest by Israel. Although they are prepared to make peace with Israel, they have not abandoned their historic narrative that Zionism has been both morally legally wrong, and that they, rather than Israel, are the primary victims of the conflict. Most Israelis, in contrast, continue to see themselves, based on their historic and religious ties to the land of Palestine, and Palestinian violence and terrorism, as the primary victim.
The Ironies of Israeli Policy
It is ironic that Israel, which was created as a refuge for Jews whose history wasI marked by persecution, humiliation and suffering, has not been more understanding of the suffering of the Palestinians.. As historian-journalist, David Hirst, wrote, “One of the many peculiarities of a movement (i.e.: Zionism) borne of resistance to injustice and persecution, is that it should have been so insensitive to that self-same resistance that it bred in others”. (7)
It is also ironic also that Israel, a nation created in 1948 through a vote of the United Nations, has through the course of the ensuing 59 years proceeded to flaunt or otherwise ignore so many UN resolutions, recommendations and directives. The reasons for these policies are much debated, but many observers believe that Israel’s aggressive policies toward the Palestinians and its defiance of international law have been conditioned by incessant propaganda, and military leadership that plays a disproportionate role in Israeli policy, and the rise of messianic Judaism. Other causes are an overemphasis on self reliance and force, as a reaction to the powerlessness of the Jewish people in the past, and the impact of Palestinian terrorism that has strengthened hard line views in Israel.
Examples of Israel’s unwillingness to abide by international law are UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 call for the “withdrawal of Israelis armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (i.e. the June 1967 War.)” While Israel has accepted the “land for peace” principle with respect to the Egypt Sinai and withdrew as a result of a peace treaty with Egypt, it has preferred to settle hundreds of thousands of Jews in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and has sought to avoid a major “land for peace “compromise” over those territories. It has been especially tenacious in dismissing international legal claims concerning Jerusalem.UN Security Council Resolution 252 of 1968 “considers that all….actions taken by Israel…which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status.” Israel has systematically flaunted this UN directive.
Another example: UN Security Council Resolution 476 of 1980 “reconfirms that all actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which purport to alter the character and status of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention.” Israel has clearly not abided by this prescription. In fact, in direct opposition to this resolution, the Knesset, the Israeli legislative body, has passed legislation proclaiming that Jerusalem is to be all Israeli.
Israel’s May 14, 1948 “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” states that the nation will “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race and sex…” (9) The treatment of Palestinian Israeli citizens, which as of 2004 comprised 23.6% (10) of the nation’s population, clearly has not been in accordance with Israel’s own founding declaration.
And there is one final irony. In Israel, by law, any Jew living anywhere in the world, has an automatic right to residence and citizenship in Israel; whereas a Palestinian who along with his ancestors, may have been born and raised in what is now Israel, has no such rights.
Settling the Settlements Issue
“To maintain the status quo will not do. We have to set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion” Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion
This claim reflects Ben-Gurion’s strategy underlying Israel’s acquisition and occupation of non-Israeli land. Is it Israel’s strategy today?
During the 1967 war, Israel conquered and occupied territory that was not part of Israel: the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza. As a result of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty negotiated in conjunction with the Carter Administration, the Sinai was returned to Egypt. But almost forty years after the conquest, Israel still occupies and controls the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Even though it recently disbanded its settlements in the Gaza strip and withdrew its military forces, Israel still maintains tight controls over Gaza.
In the West Bank, Israel has continuously built residential and commercial settlements. As of 2004, there were more than 400,000 Israeli settlers living in 138 settlements in the West Bank. (11) The settlements are in clear violation of international law, runs counter to the whole series of UN resolutions and are contrary to U.S. policy, European Union policy and the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the nations in the world. Yet, the process continues. The United States continues to offer gentle “slaps on the wrist” to Israel while at the same time providing several billion dollars annually in military and economic aid.
With the regard to the settlements program, one must conclude that Israel has one of two objectives in mind: Either 1) Israel has no intention of ever relinquishing control of the occupied territories and is seeking, through its program of gradual growth in settlements, to establish enough ‘facts on the ground’ to give it de facto ownership of the land, or 2) It is building settlements to eventually be used as ‘bargaining chips’ in some future final phase peace agreement.
But under either scenario, the settlement policy is actually serving to move Israel away from peace and security because it is serving only to inflame Palestinian and Arab hatred of Israel, further isolate Israel internationally and increase the radicalization of the Palestinian community.
U.S. Interests
America’s interests in the region are essentially three:
1. We have a long standing alliance with Israel and it is in our interest that we are, in fact, and perceived as, a reliable friend and ally. Therefore, it is not only in our interest, but is consistent with our values to continue to act to preserve Israel as a secure and viable nation.
2. At the same time, it is also in our interest to be, and to be seen as, consistently supporting the core American values of freedom and self determination for peoples all over the world, including the Palestinians. If we are supporting the Jews right to independence and a homeland, we cannot without severe inconsistency, fail to support the realization of the same rights for the Palestinians. This is U.S. official policy as reflected in President Bush’s explicit call for a two-state solution and an independent Palestinian state.
3. There has developed a deep hostility toward the U.S. in the Arab/Muslim world over America’s perceived failure to work in an even-handed fashion for peace. But the U.S. has vital economic interests in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The world’s 1.2 billion Muslims represent an important market for American goods and services. A significant portion of our vital oil and gas imports originates in Arab/Muslim countries. By contrast, with a total population less than 7 million and no significant natural resources, Israel holds relatively modest economic or commercial value for the
4. Finally, the U.S. obviously has a paramount interest in quelling international terrorism. The ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is viewed throughout the Muslim world as a gross injustice and that sense of injustice continues to be an effective recruiting tool and motivator for the terrorist networks. Therefore, forging an equitable, American-led peace would help combat terrorism.
Israeli Interests
Israeli interests in all this are at the same time simpler and more complex. Israel’s overriding interests are, of course, security and survival: to be a viable, prosperous and secure state living in peace with its neighbors and, in particular, with its contiguous neighbors: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians.
But, Israel is one of the few nations on earth that cannot describe to the rest of the world where its national borders lie. On that there is a wide divergence of opinion within the Israeli population. Opinions range from those who believe Israel is the land of the pre-1967 boundaries to those who, based on their religious views, believe God gave them “greater Israel”; that is, the entirety of the land from the Mediterranean east across the Jordan River to include all of the West Bank.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin, reflecting this latter view, once stated, “It would be impossible to annex the West Bank because it is already part of The Land.” (12) For the segment of the Israeli population who holds to the vision of a greater Israel, the country’s interests do not seem to lie so much with peace, but in the fulfillment of what they truly believe is God’s covenant promise to give all of ‘the Land’ to the Jews.
While those who maintain this position are a minority, their position is intensely held.
Based on a myriad of opinion polls, it is clear, however, that a majority of Israelis not only want peace with their neighbors, but support a two-state solution and recognize that they will have to ultimately relinquish most, if not all, of the occupied territories.
The Way Forward: Begin at the End
Peace is only possible when both sides can begin to see the conflict through the eyes of their opponent. This obviously places a responsibility on both sides and it should go without saying that the Palestinians must make every effort to grasp the Israeli perspective. However, as mentioned at the outset, I have opted to focus here almost exclusively on the Palestinian viewpoint, because it is so little understood in the United States.
Former Ambassador Philip Wilcox, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, captured the point well: “The Israeli-Palestinian struggle over the Holy Land…is the story of two victims. It is not surprising that neither the Jews, given their past suffering and desperation after Hitler’s war, nor the Palestinians, who had no responsibility for Jewish suffering at the hands of Westerners, but nevertheless lost their homeland, felt any empathy for each other. It is tragic, nevertheless, that the passage of time has done so little to heal these historic wounds and that the rest of the world, especially the United States, has allowed this dreadful situation to fester.” (13)
So the struggle today is fundamentally over the land Israel conquered in 1967 and has settled since. Israel and the Palestinians --- along with the U.S., the Europeans, Russia, the UN and other actors --- have been trying sporadically for a half century now to craft a fair and lasting peace. All to no avail.
Why? Primarily because previous American administrations have adopted a slow, gradualist approach that involved a series of small, incremental ‘confidence building’ steps. This is the approach of the now famous…or infamous… ‘road map’ that has been a road map to nowhere.
The gradualist approach has not worked because there are important actors both in Israel and in the Palestinian community who do not want a negotiated settlement. And these actors have been able to sabotage or indefinitely delay (which is a form or sabotage) progress toward peace.
For the past six years, the Bush Administration has kept this whole problem simmering on ‘low heat’ on the back burner. Recently, Secretary of State Rice has been giving higher priority to resolving this conflict. She has called for the creation of “political horizon” that describes the basic elements of an Israeli Palestinian peace in a way that would restore hope and support for renewed negotiations. It would probably take much longer than twenty-two months remaining for the Bush administration to negotiate a comprehensive peace. Yet if President Bush commits his administration to this goal and offers the kind of compelling “ political horizon” that Condoleezza Rice has mentioned, but not yet defined, peace negotiations could overcome the current stalemate and at least pave the way to a final status agreement.
Considering past failures of American peace efforts that did not define the endgame, the U.S. should avoid another drawn out, step-by-step process of confidence building and tentative accords on subsidiary issues. The ‘road map’ is a path to endless delay and obfuscation. The Palestinians, for their part, should not wait for a release of prisoners held by Israel or the elimination of Jewish settlements on the West bank. Conversely, Israel should not wait for the Hamas dominated Palestinian Authority to formally recognize Israel’s right to exist or to forswear violence. These, on both sides, are rhetorical ploys and delaying tactics that serve only to keep the struggle grinding on.
Instead, Secretary Rice, with the President’s full support, should move boldly and begin at the end by spelling out a “political horizon” at the end by offering clear American proposals for the issues of borders, sovereignty, the status of Jerusalem, the “right of return” for refugees, Israeli settlements in the West bank, release of prisoners, and security guarantees. All of these issues must be negotiated, but the U.S. should offer its own vision of the answers, drawing on solutions that Israeli and Palestinians themselves have devised in official and unofficial negotiations over the last twenty years.
The United States, and only the United States, has the clout to move the parties forward along this path. Will it work? No one knows. But what we do know is that none of the gradualist approaches of the past have worked.
If Israel and the Palestinians cannot hammer out such an agreement, both will face an ongoing state of war with continued killing, destruction and economic hardship. And because this bleak scenario is also not in America’s national interests, it is long past time that the Administration gives this noble effort its highest priority.
The Author
Stephen D. Hayes is a free-lance writer. During his 25 years in government, he served in the military, on the international staff of the U.S. Treasury Department, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and as a senior staff member to two U.S. Senators.
FOOTNOTES
1. Neff, Donald, Warriors for Jerusalem, Lunden Press/Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 17.
2. Ibid. p. 21
3. Ibid p. 22
4. Hirst, David, The Gun and the Olive Branch, Faber & Faber, 1977, 1984, 2003, p. 203
5. Schechtman, Joseph B., Fighter and Prophet: the Vladimir Jabotinsky Story, p. 479
6. Hirst, Op.Cit., p. 329
7. Ibid. p. 174
8. Ibid. p. 499
9. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (14 May 1948)
10. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, 2007
11. Foundation for Middle East Peace, “Statistics” Settlement Information
12. Hirst, Op. cit., p. 529
13. Wilcox, Philip, “The Holy Land: Can Peace Be Rescued?” Foreign Service Journal December 2006, pp. 21-22