I have read through the whole thread, but in answer to the OP, I don't think anyone can explain Israel in simple terms!
I've been digging through my back-up drive for an old presentation I gave. It's a good 5 or 6 years old now, and is somewhat out of date (Yasser Arafat died shortly after I wrote it, for example). I warn you now, it's long...
When I think of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I hear two voices:
Throughout long centuries of exile we have cherished the dream of a promised land:
- During our captivities in Egypt and Babylon
- In our scattering after the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the end of the Jewish kingdom
- In the ghettos of medieval Europe
- Throughout the persecution of Tsarist Russia
- And worst of all in the agony and terror of the Holocaust
We dreamed of a land where we could live in safety and peace. Somehow we made our way to Palestine in leaky, overcrowded ships, overcoming bureaucratic obstruction and hostility.
Once there, we were attacked by Arab armies, more numerous and better equipped. But we held them off with the courage of desperation.
We built a new society and a thriving economy with our bare hands and hard work.
We fought three more wars with the Arabs in less than 20 years. We won them all because we had to: one defeat would have been the end.
We only want to live in peace. Yet we spend more on defence than any other country, and our sons and daughters spend more time in military service.
We are a democratic society, surrounded by absolute monarchies and dictatorships.
Every day we face the threat of terrorist bombs and shootings.
Why does the world not understand?
*
We co-existed in peace with the Jews for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire. At its end, Palestine contained 700,000 Arabs and only 56,000 Jews.
During World War I, Britain made conflicting promises to both peoples. They kept their promise to the Jews, and broke the one to us.
After World War II, Jewish immigration became a torrent. Palestine was supposed to be shared, and declaring the State of Israel flew in the face of UN resolutions and international law.
Our houses and the land we had farmed for hundreds of years were seized without compensation, and the owners driven out.
Israel attacked us without warning in 1956 and 1967 and seized vast areas of land, some of which it still holds.
Those of us who still live in Israel suffer constant discrimination. Many have no rights at all. Arabs with Israeli citizenship form 25% of the population but have only 5% of the seats in the Knesset.
Those of us in the occupied territories face daily humiliations. They are cut off from their farms and jobs without warning. Pregnant women and sick children die in ambulances because the Israelis will not let them through to hospital.
When the Jews blew up the King David Hotel and killed the UN Commissioners, they called themselves freedom fighters. When we blow up an Israeli Army post of shoot an Israeli Cabinet Minister, they call us terrorists.
The United States accuses our leaders of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But which is the only Middle East country with nuclear weapons?
Every time the United Nations tries to criticise Israel, the United States vetoes the resolution.
We do not want to be terrorists, but what other option is left?
Why does the world not understand?
***
Aristotle defined a melodrama as a conflict between right and wrong, a tragedy as a conflict between right and right. By that definition, this is truly a tragedy, and a story from which no-one emerges with much credit: not the British, Palestinians, Israelis or Americans.
There is in this conflict so much weight of history and prejudice: rather like Ireland, where any discussions of modern politics leads straight back to the 17th century, to Oliver Cromwell and William III. This is not the place to plod through 3000 years of history, but I would like to touch on a few salient points.
Many people see Israelis as reclaiming their ancestral lands, which had somehow been usurped by the Palestinians. If anything, the reverse is true. The Jews arrived from Egypt some time before 1000BC and found the Philistines already there. Under David and Solomon, Israel became rich and powerful: Solomon's temple was built in c950BC. This was a golden age to which Jews looks back with nostalgia, just as modern Greeks are nostalgic about 5th century Athens. But after the Babylonian conquest, Israel enjoyed only brief periods of semi-independence between 600BC and the Muslim conquest in 638AD. After that, there was no Jewish state of any sort in Palestine for over 1300 years.
Instead, there was the Diaspora: the scattering of Jewish people, especially to Russia and Eastern Europe, although they never forgot the greeting "next year in Jerusalem." Oppression by Russians and others increased their yearning for a land of their own and led to the founding of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. They were offered a home in an unoccupied area of Uganda, but were not interested.
World War I: Britain needed both Arabs and Jews on their side. The Arabs to mount a revolt against the Ottoman Empire in the Arabian Peninsula and support an attack from Egypt towards the Levant; the Jews for continued financial support. The Arabs were given promised of independence which were not kept. The Jews were given the 1917 Balfour Declaration:
His Majesty' Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate this achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Think about this. It's a little like saying:
We view with favour this geometrical shape becoming a circle, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the status of the right angles at its corners.
No Arab will let us forget it.
After World War I, Palestine became a British mandate. Jews were a majority in the city of Jerusalem, but were outnumbered over 10 to 1 in Palestine as a whole. The Jewish population slowly increased by immigration during the 1920s and 1930s: there was some Arab resentment, but his was directed more against Britain than against the Jews themselves. Jews paid fair prices for their houses and land, they did not seize them without compensation. Before the outbreak of World War II, there were fewer than 1 million inhabitants - there was plenty of room for all.
After World War II, things were very different. The Holocaust had intensified Jewish anxiety to leave Europe for Palestine, and simultaneously increased world sympathy for them: even though it was the Nazi regime in Germany, not the Arabs, that was responsible for their sufferings. Immigration became uncontrolled. Britain was enfeebled by 6 years of war and distracted by problems elsewhere (Greece, India, Malaya). Jewish terrorism increased, with the murder of the British High Commissioner and the UN Representative.
Eventually Britain washed its hands of Palestine and unilaterally terminated the mandate in May 1948. Jews declared the establishment of the State of Israel: Arab countries immediately attacked. After 12 months, they had reached a military stalemate, with both sides holding roughly the territory allotted to them under the UN's plan for partition. A truce was signed, and a possible window for a permanent peace, until King Abdullah of Jordan was assassinated in 1951 and King Farouk of Egypt was deposed in 1952. Two important voices of Arab moderation were silenced.
The Suez conflict in 1956: Nasser's removal of the monarchy and seeking of Soviet help for the Aswan Dam project supplied the impetus for an Israeli/French/British conspiracy to recapture the Suez Canal, which Nasser had nationalised. Although militarily successful, they were undermined by economic pressure from the United States: the last occasion on which the US took the Arab side. Eventually, Nasser emerged even stronger.
The 6-day war in June 1967: Egypt again supplied the pretext by closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Israel attacked first and destroyed the Egyptian Air Force on the ground. The Israelis occupied Sinai, and when Syria and Jordan joined in, occupied the Golan Heights and West Bank as well. It was a massive Arab defeat, and led to an Israeli sense of invincibility.
The war led to British-brokered UNSCR 242 in November 1967, calling for Israeli withdrawal "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The wording is very important: as President Clinton said, "it all depends on what you mean by 'the'." It was not Britain's finest diplomatic achievement, and proves that there is no such thing as 'constructive' ambiguity.
The Palestinians turned to terrorism: hijacking ships and aircraft. The expulsion of Palestinian militants from Jordan in September 1970 (Black September) only made things worse. The worst incident was the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
October 1973: the Yom Kippur war. This time the Arabs attacked first. Egyptian forces bridged the Suez Canal and occupied much of Sinai. However, the Israelis outflanked them and were threatening Cairo when a ceasefire was agreed. There was little change on the ground, but Egyptian Armed Forces had recovered their pride after two massive defeats. This greater Egyptian confidence helped to make possible Sadat's stunning gesture of flying to Jerusalem in 1977, which in turn led to the 1978 Camp David agreement and peace between Egypt and Israel, but also to the assassination of Sadat in 1981.
The 1980s were a difficult time for the whole region. Turmoil in Lebanon, including Israeli invasion and massacre of Palestinians in two Lebanese refugee camps, for which the current Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, bears much responsibility. The Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1979, continued until 1988. In 1987, the first Palestinian 'intifada'. Finally, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War.
The 1990s started hopefully, with many rounds of the Madrid Conference. Eventually the Norwegians, working without publicity, brokered a peace agreement, providing for Palestinian self-rule (but not complete independence) and peace between Jordan and Israel.
However, this air of optimism was dissipated by the Hebron Mosque massacre: 39 Arabs shot dead in the mosque by an Israeli settler, and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Like previous peacemakers King Abdullah of Jordan and President Sadat of Egypt, he was killed by the fanatics on his own side.
August 2000 saw a final attempt to reach agreement, again at Camp David. Unfortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer was too vague and anyway withdrawn after the start of the second Palestinian 'intifada'. That was sparked off by Sharon's intrusion, with hundreds of Israeli security personnel, into the Temple Mount: the third most holy site in Islam. It is difficult to see it as anything by a deliberate attempt to wreck the peace process.
Since then the hardliners of both sides have gained ground, especially in Israel. Killings are followed by killings. In the last 4 years some 1200-1300 Israelis have been killed, and some 4000 Palestinians. For every Israeli child killed by an Arab suicide bomb, 3 Palestinian children are shot dead by Israeli security forces. The blind folly of Arab suicide bombings gives the Israeli hardliners an easy cop-out and an excuse to occupy Palestinian towns, expand the illegal settlements and pinch off further areas of Palestinian territory, as is happening now with Israel's new security barrier.
Of course, it is not true that all peace efforts are at a standstill. Talks between Israeli left-wingers and Palestinian moderates have produced a draft agreement similar to the one discussed at Camp David in 2000. Unfortunately, the peacemakers are at present in a minority on both sides. The US/EU/Russia/UN 'road map' is an interesting idea, but unfortunately Sharon insists that implementation must be sequential: an end to violence precedes any withdrawal by Israel, whereas the whole point of the map was that progress by both sides should be simultaneous. Within the past few weeks, Sharon has said that the map is no longer relevant.
So the only initiative still on the table is Sharon's proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from the Israeli settlements in Gaza. If it happens, it will be a step forward. But although his plan is supported by a majority of Israelis, it is bitterly opposed by most of his own party and its partners in the coalition government. More crucially, it leaves open the question of the West Bank, from which Israeli withdrawal is far more important for the Palestinians, and far less acceptable to the Israelis.
A further difficulty is that neither Israel nor the US is currently willing to negotiate with Yasser Arafat. They criticise him for duplicity and lack of leadership, but it is difficult to stand tall when you're continually being cut off at the knees. His current medical situation also begs the question of who would replace him. The three men most likely to be able to speak for the moderate Palestinians and be recognised by the US and Israel will be ignored by the hardliners, by Hamas. The one man who would be listened to by Hamas is currently sitting in an Israeli jail. Even if Israel released him, is it highly unlikely that either they or the US would be willing to negotiate with him. Israel's policy of brutal security clampdowns whenever a terrorist incident occurs, and of assassinating anyone it decides to target, is also leading down a blind alley. It is the policy tried by the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam and elsewhere in South-East Asia, the Russians in Afghanistan and now in Chechnya. It has failed every time.
Having poured out doom and gloom, it's traditional to produce a solution, like a rabbit out of a hat. I only wish I could. I'm reminded of asking for directions in Ireland: "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." Nevertheless, I think I can see what needs to be done, though it's far less clear how to do it.
In the first place, the initiative must be reclaimed by ordinary decent people from the fanatics and religious fundamentalists who currently dominate the issue. I emphasise that I'm not thinking simply of Islamic fundamentalists like Al-Qa'ida and Hamas. The fundamentalist Jewish settlers who oppose any concessions to the Arabs are potentially just as violent and ruthless: the worst single suicide attack was the Hebron mosque massacre in 1994. We must get both sides to see that negotiating and making concessions is not giving in to terrorism, but providing sensible people with a real alternative.
Secondly, we must find an honest broker: not the US, whom the Arabs don't trust; not Russia, whom the Israelis don't trust; nor the EU or UK, which neither side trusts. The UN will have a role, but to cement an agreement, not create it. What is needed is someone independent and a little removed from the political front line. 10 years ago the Norwegians did very well. Perhaps they could take up the task again. Or possibly a big Third World country: Brazil perhaps, or even South Africa.
If these first two conditions can be fulfilled, further success will depend on four factors:
- Israeli willingness to make major concessions, especially over evacuating the illegal settlements, not only in Gaza but also on the West Bank, all of which, or nearly all, must be handed over to the Palestinians, so that their state controls a continuous area of territory, not a handful of isolated enclaves. The Palestinians must also have a genuine measure of power in East Jerusalem.
- The US must be firm in facing down Israeli protests and criticism by the Israeli lobby at home.
- The Palestinians must clamp down on terrorism and co-operate fully with Israeli and international security forces in keeping it under control. They must also accept that they will never be able to return to Israel, but will have to settle for financial compensation in respect of their lost lands and property.
- The UN must create a large and effective peace-keeping force, staffed as much as possible from countries remote from the conflict (Argentina, Brazil, the Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada, possibly Japan and South Korea), but with American logistical and technical support to give it muscle.
Is there hope for a solution on these lines? Of course, while there's life, there's hope. But if progress, however slow, can be made on something like these lines, then that hope can have real substance. However difficult progress may be, we have to try, and go on trying. Otherwise we shall witness many more Israeli deaths and even more Palestinian ones. And we shall be left pondering Aristotle's definition of tragedy for many years to come.
Add message | Report | Message poster sephrenia Mon 07-Feb-11 02:04:16
earwicga, my DH had used my account to post that statement. I've asked him to use his own account to talk to everyone here again so that people don't get confused between him and me.
I personally am learning a lot about Israel and Palestine that I didn't know before so thanks OP for posting this
Add message | Report | Message poster earwicga Mon 07-Feb-11 01:16:32
tonythetyger - I agree with much of your comment.