Social Cleavages and Their Political Implications in Israel/Palestine and the Former Yugoslavia

"Where I settle, I guard," (Aronson, p.4). This simple statement could be made by an Arab, a Jew, a Croat, or a Serb. For two completely different geographical locations, Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia have much in common in ways of social cleavages and their political implications. Granted, there are differences and I will discuss them along with the similarities in this essay.

One of the most obvious social cleavages in both Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia is religion. The Israelis (Jews) and the Palestinians (Arabs) are at war in the Middle East, while the Croats (Catholics) and the Serbs (Eastern Orthodox) fight in the former Yugoslavia. Religion should naturally be a binding element, believing in a higher power which gives hope to a better future, but it turns into politics and divides. The Arabs defend Palestine because it is their homeland and they have many sacred places where they worship their God. Faced with persecution from Hitler, Jews sought out the land that was promised to them in The Bible and immigrated to Palestine where they found that the Arabs were not willing to give up their sacred places. "The particular importance of Jerusalem to Israel... cannot be overemphasized. The prophet Zechariah said 'Thus said the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country: And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.' (Zechariah, 8:7-8)," (Rowley, p. 50). Both groups think they are destined to be there and this causes problems. In the former Yugoslavia as well, conflict is inevitable because of the ancient hatreds between the two opposing groups. Both the Croats and the Serbs use select stories of the past to prove their claim to the land. This conflict caused Yugoslavia to call for an independent state of Croatia and the Jews to create the state of Israel.

Race or ethno-racial conflict is a social cleavage that is interwoven in all the others-with some devastating results. "With only 8% of the world population, the Arab world has had some 25% of all the world's armed conflicts since 1945. Most of these conflicts have been ethno-racially based. Though considered by all concerned as the principal one, the Arab-Israeli conflict (six wars and a continued Palestinian and Lebanese struggle against Israeli occupation) has claimed some 200,000 lives in fifty years. In contrast, during the same period, ethno-racial conflicts have claimed at least twelve times as many lives," (Ibrahim, p. 2). The same goes for the former Yugoslavia: "During the four years between 1941 and 1945, more people in Yugoslavia were killed by their fellow countrymen than by the German, Italian, Hungarian and Bulgarian occupying forces," (Singleton, p.3).

One of the differences in the forming of political groups because of social cleavages is that in Israel/Palestine there were two clear groups: the Arabs and the Jews. In the former Yugoslavia after the formation of Croatia, the Serbia subgroup: the Partisans (led by Tito) had the support of all Yugoslavs. In Israel/Palestine you were either for Yitzhak Rabin or for Yasser Arafat. There was no other choice.

Once these groups started on their separate causes, lives were lost, communities were torn apart, and of course the United States had to enforce their "policing" as it has in so many other cases. They didn't send troops like in Vietnam or Korea but they did initiate peace talks in both cases. In the former Yugoslavia, the first step in the U.S.'s intervention was the recognition of Bosnia by the European Union. Then the United Nations imposed sanctions on Serbia and after massive ethnic cleansing by the Bosnian Serbs, all parties met in London to agree that ethnic cleansing should stop. Two years later the U.S. steps in and sponsors a deal between the Muslims and Croats to end their war and create a federation. The next year, Jimmy Carter negotiates a four month truce. When the Croats conquer Krajina later that year, President Clinton sent Richard Holbrooke to the Balkans with a new peace plan. After a cease-fire, peace talks are actually held in Dayton, Ohio. Forgive any sarcasm on the U.S.'s "policing" of this case and many others; one might suppose that it is their duty as a world superpower. And anyone can see what a big part the country played in the trials of peace in the former Yugoslavia.

In Israel/Palestine the U.S. granted Arafat permission to address the United Nations where he renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's existence. But then in 2002, President Bush calls for a regime change amongst the Palestinians and places most of the responsibility for ending the violence in Israel/Palestine on the leadership of the Palestine Leadership Organization. This was mostly due to the terrorist attack on the U.S. on September the 11^th but it is still difficult to see what good a complete "about-face" has done to instate peace in the Middle East. Rabin, leader of the Israelis, renounced all terrorists, but Arafat almost acts like he doesn't know they exist or that they are only doing their part on the battle for their country. This is one of the reasons the U.S. has stopped holding out a helping hand to the Arabs.

The initialization of peace talks by the United States in both Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia is a political implication from the social cleavage of being a world superpower. If the United States didn't step in, it would look bad to the rest of the international community. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, the U.S. was still criticized on the fact that it didn't enter into the situation until much later, and by then many people were killed through ethnic cleansing. To some it seems that the U.S. only enters when it is of their interest to do so, such as in the gaining of oil from Israel. Regardless of the reasons, the U.S. makes up one very important political implication in both situations.

As mentioned earlier, conflict of religion, hand in hand with ethnicity is a big similarity both locations have in their troubles. Both areas feared Hitler and his persecution of Jews. When he invaded the first Yugoslavia during World War II, he gave power to the Croat Utasas which began a cycle of massacres. At the same time this was going on, Jews from all over Europe were fleeing to Palestine because they were no longer wanted in England and the United States. Their return to their holy land pushed the native Arabs into refuge camps and many were killed. It seems like one big cycle of minority killings. When the minorities tried to escape this, they ended up trying to get rid of the other ethnic group in the land to which they immigrated (Israel/Palestine). This could be caused by a fear of becoming a second-class citizen once again. And just as the Jews massacred and raped the Arabs and pushed them into refuge camps; the Croats (under the power of Hitler) wiped out entire Serb villages and forced the rest into the Jasenovac concentration camp. The Serbs outnumbered the Croats in the former Yugoslavia, just as the Arabs outnumbered the Jews in Israel/Palestine. The reactions by the Arabs and the Serbs were similar. Serb guerrillas emerged: the Partisans (led by Tito) and the Chetniks (led by Mihailovic). Arab groups such as Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization were formed before the meeting of such groups was outlawed by Israelis.

A difference in these rebellious groups is that the Partisans were unlike any group in Israel/Palestine. They allowed anybody to join, regardless of origin. No nationality was allowed to dominate. They strove to make Yugoslavia a model of cosmopolitan multiculturalism. The Jews wanted to take over Israel/Palestine-the Arabs were not willing to give up their homes. They would allow a multicultural community if given the choice, according to Ibrahim: "To them, non-Muslims are to exist as 'protected communities,' (ahl zimma), run their own communal affairs, and pay the jezia (a poll tax). So long as they respect the Muslim majority and recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic state, non-Muslim communities are to be treated with respect, compassion and religious tolerance," ("Racism and Mismanagement of Ethnic Diversity in the Arab World", p. 4). The Israelis would have none of that though; they would not be treated as second class citizens regardless of the fact that they were immigrants. This was their land... promised by God. Intermarriage was becoming more and more popular in Yugoslavia, but it was not allowed by the Israelis in Palestine. It raised the quality of life for the former, and could have done the same for the latter if not for the divisions between every particle of their lives: homes, jobs, schools, temples, etc.

Another social cleavage Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia had in common was the death of their leaders. When Tito died, Yugoslavia fell apart. The people were in huge debt and they wanted to elect "another Tito." The political implication for this was that Yugoslavia had to form a whole new ideology of its history. "Tito depicted the First Yugoslavia as a product of bourgeois, Great Serbian hegemony and the royal dictatorship of King Alexander after 1929 as a 'monarcho-fascist dictatorship,'" (Ballinger, p.107). In order to move forward, the people of Yugoslavia had to take on a new identity. When the leader of the Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated, the political implication was that the stalemate between himself and Arafat that had existed for years broke. Neither had ever wanted to budge in negotiations and now it seemed that some kind of resolution could be reached. However when Shimon Peres took Rabin's place as Prime Minister, he was defeated shortly after by Israeli opposition leader, Ariel Sharon. One can hardly think that a rebellious character would negotiate more with Arafat than his predecessor. In fact Sharon goes ahead with a controversial visit to al-Aqsa compound-the third most holy site in Islam. This leads to protest by the Palestinians and hundreds of lives-both Palestinian and Israeli-are lost in the months afterward.

Yet another similar social cleavage that Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia share is the fact that their struggles against their neighbors (whether it be the Arabs or the Serbs) caused strain on their neighboring countries. After the 1967 war in the Arab states, clashes occurred in Lebanon between the Palestinian guerillas and the Lebanese government forces. Conflict in Jordan also broke out towards the Palestinians because of King Hussein's apprehension about a mounting Palestinian power base within his country. Revolutionary Palestinian activities in Syria were also quickly put to a halt after a coup. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was so out of control that German, Italian, Hungarian and Bulgarian forces occupied the area. However, this is not the case in 1973, Israel and Iran (connected by their relationships with the U.S.) formed a powerful relationship as dominant centers of sub-imperialism within the Middle East (Rowley, p. 54).

I have mentioned many differences and similarities between social cleavages in Israel/Palestine and the former Yugoslavia but I still come back to the most important one: religion. Clements says, "Religion was thus a social fact and a function of society: 'A man did not choose his religion or frame it for himself; it came to him as part of the general scheme of social obligations and ordinances laid upon him, as a matter of course, by his position in the family and in the nation...Religion did not exist for the saving of souls but for the preservation and welfare of society' (Smith: 1927, 28f)" (The World of Ancient Israel, p. 42). Religion is key in Israel/Palestine where both parties are fighting over the right to live in their holy land. Religion is key in the former Yugoslavia, where ancient hatreds formed around the different religions of neighbors... where the people are of the same ethnicity but cannot get along because of select biased stories from the past that keep being told. It all seems very strange, that such a simple concept as a man and his God can create such devastating political implications as these two areas have. Instead of saving lives, religion has cost many.

Bibliography

Aronson, Geoffrey, Israel, Palestinians and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank (London: Kegan Paul International, 1990) p. 4.

Ballinger, Pamela, History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans (Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003) p. 107.

Clements, R. E. (editor), The World of Ancient Israel-Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) p. 42.

Ibrahim, Saad Eddin, "Racism and Mismanagement of Ethnic Diversity in the Arab World" International Council on Human Rights Policy: Consultation on Reacism and Human Rights (Geneva, December 3-4, 1999) p. 2, 4.

Rowley, Gwyn, Israel into Palestine, (London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1984) p. 50, 54.

Singleton, Fred, Twentieth-Century Yugoslavia, (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1976) p. 3.