The Arab Israeli Conflict and Components: Ceaseless Violence in a Sacred Land

Since the very day its sovereign existence was officially declared over half a century ago, the existence of the State of Israel and its constituents catalyzed a perennial

cycle of factionalism and strife. The Arab League of Nations and Palestinian's severe reaction to Israel's existence affects many nations and peoples throughout the world. This is despite the relatively small land area, the number of resulting casualties and amount of body politic directly involved.

Immediately after the official creation of the sovereign state of Israel, bloody conflict has rarely ceased in Palestinian and Israeli life. In this paper I will explain the important events before and after the establishment of Israel as a state to gain a deeper insight on the . I will propose a realistic method of managing and resolving the conflict based on a review of pertinent literature. I will show that a permanent state of peace cannot be achieved by the same means which the world community has attempted many times in the past and this war does not have one single oppressor, one view of right and wrong, will never have one total victor but must be managed to ensure the stability of the world at large. These previous declarations will be substantiated with a comprehensive pertinent historical review.

As a result of Britains military impotence to maintain its Empire it relinquished intermittent control of Palestine to the United Nations. The United Nations charter for Israel gave 56% of the territory of Palestine to the Jewish inhabitants, who comprised less then 30% of the total population at the time. An Arab state was to have 43% of the land; and a small enclave in Jerusalem and Bethlehem was to be a managed by the United Nations as an international zone (Falah, 97). The newly created democratic state of Israel in 1948. United Nations advisors appointed an interim prime minister and head chiefs of state. The prime minister of the new Israel immedeatly released a signed declaration with the aim of catalyzing a mass exodus of Jews to Israel. This prompted a flux of Arab "refugees" from Israel into the surrounding Arab countries of Egypt, Syria and Arab Palestine, what is now called the West Bank and the tiny Gaza Strip.

The constitution also called for cooperation with the neighboring Arab states and recognition of its government from other nations. The day after the constitution had been signed the British were in preparation for their evacuation and the United States officially recognized the Israeli government. Meanwhile 5 Arab armies were massing on Israel's borders for a military invasion. The nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt launched an assault on the new nation the following day. These nations justified their invasion using two points. The first was to make sure that the promise of an Arab nation at the time of occupation was honored. Second, the Arab inhabitants of the partitioned land and surrounding countries were horrified at what they saw were arbitrary and unequal aspects of the borders drawn by the UN which were turned over to Jews (Wagner, 11). This was the first of five major wars fought between Israel and its neighbors. Within several months the British and U.S. backed Israeli military occupied an additional 2,000 square miles. Either sides of the conflict never made territorial negotiations and concessions after the war unofficially ended. The loss of Palestine to the new Israel was percieved as degrading and shameful to Arab nations. A multi national force could not secure an Arab land. Furthermore, Israel moved its capitol from tel Aviv to the multi faith based sacred city of Jerusalem, a clear indication that it would not give up any occupied territories. As of 2005 Israel is offically still in a state of war with the 4/5ths of those nations. In fact the only nation to ever sign a peace treaty with Israel was Egypt in 1979.

The Arab nations modified their humiliation into frustration. The demand for Arab rights was at an all time high as they viewed their current governments as ineffective aristocracies, which did not promote Arab nationalism. Leaders in Syria and Lebanon were assassinated, the King of Jordan was shot and a revolution overthrew the government in Iraq. The monarchy in Egypt was overthrown by 1950 and a former military general by the name of Gamal Nasser was elected prime minister. This new Egyptian leader negotiated the withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal, leaving only the Israelis to defend the occupied territory. Egypt started to proliferate new weapons of war from the USSR. Israel was being supplied arms from its allies France and the United States. Egypt began conducting intelligence operations inside Israel by teams called the Fadayeen. These Fadayeen were teams of Egyptian military intelligence agents who sabotaged civil and military instillations. In early 1955, Israel attacked what they claimed were Fadayeen outposts several months after the first officers were caught which led to the Sinai - Suez war from 1955 - 65. Egypt vowed to reclaim the internationally vital Suez Canal and surrounding areas. Egypt, Syria and friendly non-governmental organizations used guerilla style tactics, attempting to collapse the Israeli infrastructure by bombing bridges, power plants, targeting civilian populations and non-conventional targets. The end result was beneficial for both sides of the conflict. The Suez Canal was ultimately taken by England and France who contributed troops during the war. For Israel, the war marked an opportunity to expand its territory and influence into neighboring lands and further guarantee its right to exist. For the Arabs the guerilla style warfare was adopted as a universal way of dealing with an enemy not one organized Arab army could possibly bring down. It also created a link with several of the more organized Palestinian guerilla groups, ultimately creating the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 by 13 Arab Heads of state. The creation of the PLO was regarded by the Arab nations at the time as a way of controlling the existing terrorist organizations and to prevent the Arab states from being drawn into another overt conflict with Palestine. One of these smaller Palestinian groups was lead by the former official representative of the Palestinian people, Yassir Arafat. The PLO was eventually united under one banner as the Palestinian cause gained more international recognition. The PLO, funded by Arab nations, drafted a charter calling for the complete annihilation of the state of Israel. In 1964 the leaders of the Arab League of Nations decided to launch projects that would deplete the amount of water available to Israel. They started to divert the valuable waters of the Jordanian river into their own territories of Syria and Lebanon, creating Irrigation canals and public works. Essentially robbing the Israelis of the most crucial and scare resource in the Middle East which supports entire populations. Israel in retaliation launched military attacks against two construction projects. The six-day war followed. Israel seized the west bank, Gaza and all Egyptian territory to the Suez Canal along with the valuable Jordan cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Israeli occupation of these cities sent thousands of Jews streaming into the Holy region.

The aims of the struggle went beyond land and into economic strangleholds the Arab nations placed on Israel and its allies. As of the mid 1960's, conflict grew increasingly international as Syria and Egypt acquired weapons of war with funding from its super power ally the USSR. Israel began Nuclear proliferation with help from the Western nations of France and the United States. The Yom Kippur war (also known as the Ramadan war) was fought over land in 1973. A cease-fire was declared 16 days after the war started. This war prompted the leaders of Arab nations to form the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The Arab members of OPEC determined that oil could be used as means to even the playing field. The sale of oil, both in terms of quantity available and price, was suddenly linked to the level of support a particular country would offer the Arab Nations (Wagner, 65). OPEC cut back the oil exports to Israel after it refused to acknowledge the rights of the Palestinian people and relinquish the land it took over in 1967. This also led to a major oil crisis in the United States which sent the price per gallon skyrocketing. The next year, United States secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, crafted agreements between Egypt, Syria and Israel that brought about the withdrawal of each sides forces from sensitive regions.

All attempts at reconciliation between Israel and Arab countries up until the year of 1977 resulted in cease fires and a single peace treaty. That year Israel elected a new prime minister who represented the Likud party, whose aims were to increase Israel territory. The Likud party concerned itself with control of the west bank and the Gaza strip. At the same time, the predecessor to Gamel Nasser in Egypt, Anwar Sadat, visited Israel. At the time the Egyptian economy was faltering. Egypt determined that foreign investment, a decrease in military spending and a relatively stable diplomatic footing with richer nations was in the best interest of Egypt. The United States saw the visitation as a wonderful opportunity to attempt to work out differences with the two nations and that this would send worldwide, a message that Israel took normal international relations seriously.

After 10 days of talks the camp David Accord was signed. The United States provided an incentive to come to a conclusion. It would offer to pay for new military bases, should Israel give up the airfields in the Sinai and give up the Jewish settlements in the northern part of the Peninsula. The final result was Israel's agreement to return the annexed region to Egypt within a 5 year transition period (Wagner, 70). For several months the plans went so well that both nations established embassies with each other. Yet the status of the West Bank and Gaza strip were not addressed in this Accord, thus Israel continued with constructing settlements there, seizing large amounts of the regions water supplies, diverting water to Jewish settlements at the expense of Palestinian wells.

As thousands of Israelis took advantage of the opportunity these new settlements offered, the government took initiative to stamp out Palestinian resistance in the region. Newspaper and books citing Palestinian Nationalism were forcefully banned from the regions.

The new Likud party gained support from a majority of Israeli's due to its leaders negotiations and expansion into territories while at the same time boosting the once fledgling Israeli economy. By the early 80's, once again all hopes at peace in the immediate future were shattered when Anwar Sadat was assassinated during a military parade. Egypt had been recently struggling with inflation and a weakening economy. A small minority of Egyptians seemed to be benefiting from foreign investment. Despite the assasination of Egypt's former head of state, Israel still continued its withdrawal per the Accords.

As perceived incursion of Israelis onto Palestinian settlements progressed as did animosity towards Israel from the PLO. Terrorist attacks on Israel grew in frequency and intensity as the PLO became more organized. The Likud party turned its sights on the PLO and the ultimate eradication of it. They saw the elimination of the PLO as a necessary action to further secure the existence and relative stability of Israel. Israel traced the roots of the PLO to its base in Beirut, Lebanon. On June 6, 1982 Israel began what it called "Peace for Galilee", a military campaign aimed at erasing the PLO. The invasion was quick and swift with additional help from Christian opposition forces in the country. The foreign military presence occupied three quarters of the country. A secondary goal of the Israeli military was now obvious as it bombarded suspected hideouts of Yassir Arafat, killing thousands. Israel was going to set up a friendly government to protect its interest in Lebanon and use Lebanon as a launching pad to attack Syria (Wagner, 79). These actions outraged native Israelis and the world at large. Many Israelis, for the first time took to the streets and airwaves expressing their shock and disgust at the military action. Ultimately, as in other conflicts, the United States intervened, declaring that if Israel did not cease its destruction of Lebanon for one country, it would cease negotiations for the PLO leaders withdrawal from the region. The Israelis complied, and a new leader was elected in Lebanon. He was assassinated using a bomb. The group that claimed responsibility for it was the Syrian national party. In response Israel swarmed into two Palestinian refugee camps, murdering hundred's of men women and children. An estimated 4,000 Israelis (about %10) of the total population took to the streets in Tel Aviv to protest this slaughter (Wagner, 83). A commission was established to investigate the slaughter and Defense minister Ariel Sharon, who is now the current prime minister of Israel, took responsibility. More violence followed. Deadly actions taken by Israeli troops on Palestinian citizens prompted what historians call the First Intifada. Arabs maintain that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, indiscriminate torture, deportations, and so on. Israel claims it was rooting out PLO members and suspected terrorists. The second Intifada was a culmination of another Israeli invasion of Palestinian cities and failed peace talks between the then leaders of both sides at Camp David in 1993.

The cycle of violence in the Middle East is seemingly never ending. This pattern of attack and retaliation, "two steps forward one step back", failed negotiations and broken promises leads one to speculate whether the two sides will ever reconcile.

One can reasonably infer the attitudes of the conflicting parties based on the history of the issue alone. However a clarification both sides use to justify their attitudes and subsequent actions is essential to understanding why this cycle, which to the uneducated reader seems cyclical and inane, is vital. For the Israelis, the war that began on May 15th, 1948 was a war for independence. In their eyes, the establishment of the state of Israel was not an event occuring on a single day in May but rather the culmination of events that dictated the need for restoration of what most Jews have viewed as their homeland. After the horrors of the holocaust unfolded, it was evident to the United Nations and Jews worldwide that they needed a homeland where they could be feel secure and free from persecution. The initial signing of the Declaration of Independence called for Jews to immigrate to Israel in an "ingathering of Exiles". All wars, which have involved Israel, have been publicly defended as Israelis virtue and Jewish religions right to existence. No Israelis have ever spoken publicly in direct contradiction to this point, although many are divided concerning the resolutions and treatment of Palestinians. The five wars Israel has been in greatly enhanced their security potential and leads many Israelis and sympathizers to ask, "Why should Israel be asked to give up its conquests and weaken its existence?"

The prevailing Palestinian view can be summed up in one word, Pan Arabism. Pan-Arabism is a movement for unification among the Arab peoples and nations of the Middle East. It is intertwined with Arab nationalism. Pan-Arabism has tended to be both secular, socialist, and against all Western influence. Arabs view themselves as a unique and distinct culture whose homeland has been altered by centuries of Western occupation.

The ideological differences between Jewish and Islamic tradition, law and overall way of life is often enough justification for the repeated attacks by Arab nations and terrorist groups on Israel and its allies. The existence of a foreign, western government created state to house exiled Jews in what Arabs consider their sacred home, is the underlying reason for this conflict. The only way that many of them see is an effective way to combat Israel is through the use of terrorism and suicide bombings in the name of a god (Ellis, 04). The Palestinian people in occupied territories still to this day consider themselves refugees despite that their land was taken over many decades ago yet people who lived through this annexation of land first hand are still alive today, living in occupied territories.

All of the literature which I have studied on the resolution of this conflict has differing viewpoints on what steps should be taken for resolution. The most extreme source, written by a practitioner of conflict resolution and advisor to the white house, Daniel Pipes, proposes all Palestinians living in Israeli controlled territories and the West bank and Gaza strip be asked to voluntarily move from the territories to other countries like Jordan, which already has a Palestinian majority (Pipes, 03). However the creation of an independent state of Palestine is a forerunning proposal. The creation of an international Task force on Palestine was founded in 2003. It is composed of prominent Palestinian Americans and former heads of state, given that the creation of a Palestinian state is now an objective of American foreign policy (Kader, 04).

The "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. U.S. President George W. Bush in a speech first outlined the principles of the plan on June 24, 2002, when he called for "the vision of … two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders" (Golan, 04). This plan includes the democratization of Palestine, local elections by Palestinian people a written constitutions and other elements of a self governing, independent state which will be recognized by the United States in time. Israel initially was very reluctant to accept this plan but gave in slightly when the current prime minister, Ariel Sharon announced in 2003 that Israel is willing to relinquish 42% of the west bank to the Palestinians but later admitted willingness to relinquish even more territory (Golan, 04). The Palestinian Authority accepted the roadmap but has its reservations about it. Palestinian public statements wish for Israel to withdraw to its pre 1967 borders and Jerusalem being the capital of a future Palestinian state. The Bush administration put the plan on the "back burner" after the two sides virtually ignored most of the first phase of the plan. This includes the disarming of terrorist groups, unification of Palestinian security organs, freezing Israeli settlement activity in the west bank and relief of restrictions on daily life in the territories (Golan, 04). The roadmap does seem to have pushed some cooperation however. In accordance with the plan along with some revisions made recently, Israel has already turned over several small cities to Palestinian control and promised to dismantle 21 civilian settlements in the west bank and Gaza strip. This action is concordant with the accepted "territories for peace" idea, that when Palestinian violence is low or non-existent, Israel would hand over small portions of land. Recently in 2005, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and President George Bush agreed that no additional revisions would be made to the roadmap and the Israelis would withdraw from 60% of the west bank.

Ever since the leader of the PLO and the Palestinian people, Yassir Arafat visited the United states in 1996, relations between Israel and Palestine and Palestine and the U.S. have been relatively stable compared to the first few decades of Israel's sovereign existence. The PLO is now recognized by Israel as the representative of Palestine. This is due to the increasing legitimacy and respect that the PLO is gaining, especially from the United States. Therefore, aggression as an option for forcing a territorial settlement has been ruled out because of the potential international intervention. Both sides have long denied each other's political existence, showing no concern for the other and only for themselves (Falah 97). This attitude is eroding away as both sides look away from violently defending their own right to exist and adopting an attitude of achieving "Super ordinate goals" for peace. With current international backing and recognition from Israel, Palestine's right to exist is more clearer then ever. Also, any reduction in the Palestinians land of the West bank and Gaza Strip, which constitute only 23% of pre - Israel Palestine, would leave them with structural disadvantages and reduce the capacity to "reabsorb" the refugees back into a sovereign state of Palestine. Thus, the removal of the Palestinian people is realistically impossible for the reasons that I have stated. In February 2005 the Israeli government voted to withdraw Israel's presence from the Gaza strip during the summer of 2005, including dismantling all the Israeli settlements and removing all Israeli settlers from the strip.

The only viable option for eventual resolution, if not management of the conflict is the creation of an independent Palestinian state, next to Israel. When the PLO recognized Israel, it recognized a state with territory, which is Sovereign but never said that it had any borders. To my surprise Israel has never exactly and officially defined its borders with the Gaza Strip and the West bank, thus territorial boundaries, the extent of sovereign territories needs to be addressed.

An article I analyzed from the Canadian Geographer, written by Chazi Falah in 1997, influences my proposed resolution. He proposed five different solutions that incorporated social structural and social process theories of conflict resolution. His Fifth proposed was a developed two state solution. It was originally proposed by the United Nations in 1947, rejected by Palestinian officials at the time but accepted by Israeli leadership at the time. A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine, the pre 1947 Palestine, (excluding Jerusalem) with a majority Jews. An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem), with majority Arabs, this section would absorb the Palestinians. An international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem would be set up comprising of left wing Israelis and Arabs equally. A guarantee of the rights of minorities and religious rights, including free access to and the preservation of Holy Places. A constitution of an Economic Union between the two states: custom union, joint monetary system, joint administration of main services, and equal access to water and energy resources. I believe that this will work, given the current level of cooperation between Israel and Palestine. The free access by all faith to Jerusalem would be guaranteed by the international trusteeship regimine. The economic Union would not be a difficult process considering the west bank and Israel both share the common currency of the Israeli Shekel. This plan would also create the two states comprised mostly of their own religions, Israel would become more Jewish demographically, "a national goal for all previous Israeli governments" (Falah, 97). In order for this plan to unfold successfully, several major steps need to be taken by the international community and a continuance in the shift of attitudes from both sides is also needed. The governing body in Jerusalem would have to be hand picked, preferably from the leaders of the major religions, which find the city holy, and the United Nations. An acceptance that the city will never again be a capital to any state ever let alone one that aligns itself with a distinct faith. This could be achieved by a shift in attitudes achieved by the mass media in major Arab nations and Israel and the continuance of peaceful negotiations. Israel would have to continue its pullout from the territories and dismantle all of its settlements in accordance with the agreement for 2005. According to Falah, "This scenario is the most practical solution not because it is inherently just, but rather because it has been transformed to be part of the new world order's accepted discourse".

1947 Partition Map. Taken from:

http://www.krysstal.com/images/democracy_israel_partition.jpg
? Current Map of Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Retrieved from:
http://gunston.gmu.edu/hillel/gifs/israel_map.gif

Works Cited

1. Ellis H. Mark. (Summer 2004) The Mural Covered Wall: On Seperation and the Future of Jews and Palestinians in Israel/ Palestine and the Diaspora. Chicago Journal of International Law, V.5, pgs 271 - 286

2. Ellis G. Donalds and Moaz Ifat. (August 2002) Cross Cultural Argument Interactions Between Israeli - Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Applied Communication Research. V. 30, pgs. 181 - 194

3. Esposito Michele K. (Spring 2004) Quarterly Update On Conflict and Diplomacy from 16 Novermber 2003 - 15 February 2004. The Journal of Palestinian Studies, V.33, pgs 128 - 147

4. Falah Chazi (fall 1997) Re- Envisioning current discourse: Alternative territorial configurations of Palestinian Statehood. The Canadian Geographer. V. 41. Pgs. 307 - 331

5. Golan Galia (Spring 2004) Plans for Israeli Palestinian Peace: From Beirut to Geneva. Middle East Policy. V. 11. Pgs 38 - 52

6. Kader Nino. (May 2004) DC - Based ATFP Dedicated to Creation of Viable Palestinian State. The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. V. 23, pgs 73 - 75

7. Kydd Andrew and Walter F. Barbara. (Spring 2002) Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extreme Violence. Journal of International Organization. V. 56, pgs. 263 - 296

8. Noar Ayre. (Spring 2003) Lessons of the Holocaust versus territories for peace, 1967 - 2002. Journal of Israel Studies. V.8, pgs 130 - 154

9. Norton Augustus (January 2001) America's Middle East Peace Crisis. Current History. pgs. 3 - 9 (no volume number given)

10. Pipes, Daniel ( February 2003) Does Israel Need A Plan? Retrieved February 3, 2005, from DanielPipes.org Website: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1015

11. Sterner Michael (January 2000) The Peace Process Revitalized. Current History. (no volume number given) pgs. 3 - 9

12. Wagner L. Heather. (2002) People At Odds. Israel and the Arab World. Chelsea House Publishers.