Historical Perspectives on Israel-Palestine Conflict

In order to gain perspective on the solutions available in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a great deal of history needs to be understood. This makes it difficult to couch the matters under discussion quickly because so many intricate moving parts that have been in play for decades have everything to do with the current matters at hand. Solutions that often seem simple and yet go on unresolved hint at deeper matters that must be dissected to be understood. It is for this reason that there is an examination of the major components of the issue in this paper—both the players and parties involved, as well as the issues and concerns that they have. 

Mahmoud Abbas, born in Safed, Palestine in 1935, left the British-controlled Safed in 1948 with his family. They lived as refugees in Syria. Before he earned his law degree, Abbas worked in construction and as an elementary school teacher. In 1959 he helped found the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, or “Fatah” (CNN Library).

The two main political parties in Palestine are Hamas and Fatah. Fatah was founded by Yasir Arafat and other Palestinian nationalists in the 1950s. “Hamas” is a reverse acronym of the group name “Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Falastini” (Palestinian National Liberation Movement), and the name also translates to mean “Conquest” or “Victory” (NYT). Fatah, through the Palestinian Authority, controls the West Bank; Hamas, the more politically radical of the two parties, controls Gaza. Gaza is a much smaller area and it is poorer than the West Bank. The Fatah party is supported by aid and troops from the U.S. and European Union in hopes that it will remain strong enough to repel any Hamas challenges and also in hopes that it will one day be able to get back control of Gaza (“Al Fatah”).  When Fatah first began, it supported guerrilla warfare as an acceptable tactic to liberate Palestine from Israel. The official emblem of Fatah shows a hand grenade and two crossed riffles held by fists in front of a map displaying both Palestinian and Israeli territories. 

The nationalist umbrella organization Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in1964 in order to establish Palestine as an independent state. There was a dispersal of control among various militia groups until Yassir Arafat gained power with several “successful” military campaigns of Fatah. in the late 1960s. Israel and nations of the West condemned these as terrorism, but these “successes” gave Fatah the financial support and backing it needed by the Palestinian citizens. This allowed Arafat to gain control of the PLO, and later of the Palestinian Authority (“Al Fatah”). Fatah, after becoming a part of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, became the PLO’s largest political group. In 1967, Abbas was appointed to the Central Committee of Fatah (CNN Library). 

In 1980 Abbas was elected to the PLO’s Executive Committee. Thirteen years later in 1993 Abbas helped to create the Declaration of Principles—the peace accord signed by both Yasser Arafat and the then Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin. Abbas traveled with Arafat to the White House so that he could sign the Declaration of Principles (also known as the Oslo Accords) as well (CNN Library). The Palestinian Authority was created when the Oslo Accord was signed. The Palestinian Authority was intended to be a provisional government of Gaza and the West Bank, eventually to be replaced by the sovereign government of Palestine once a final two-state settlement was reached (“Palestinian Authority”). 

Abbas would sign the Palestinian-Israeli Interim Peace Agreement in 1995. In March 2003 Abbas accepted the position of Palestinian Prime Minister. In June of that year, he met with international leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Jordan in order to promote and discuss peace efforts. By September 2003 Abbas had resigned the Prime Minister position. In late 2004, after Yasser Arafat’s death, Abbas became the chairman of the PLO. And in January of 2005 Abbas declared victory in the presidential elections of Palestine, shortly thereafter, President George W. Bush pledged $50 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority (“Al Fatah”).

Corruption and infighting had been dividing the party which opened the door for a brief period for a national unity government in Palestine due to Hamas winning legislative elections in 2006. In 2006 Abbas asked Ismail Haniya, the then leader of Hamas, to create a government. But then a year later Abbas dissolved the government and dismissed Hanila and appointed the economist Salam Fayyad as new Prime Minister in the new emergency Palestinian Cabinet. Hanila rejected this and remains the current leader of the Gaza Strip (CNN Library). The ending of the unification government in 2007 was drastically made final when civil war broke out and Hamas ousted any Fatah members from Gaza. Israel attempted to turn Palestinians against Hamas through economic embargo and other political means, but this mainly created more anger toward Israel and its compatriots. The Palestinian Authority attempted to create an agreement with Israel on the statehood of Palestine, but Israel would not yield on several issues including settlement building. 2007 was also the year of the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference, which was the first U.S. sponsored peace conference since 2000.  In 2009 Abbas decided to extend his term for another year, and this extension was elongated by the PLO’s Central Council when they voted to extend Abbas’ presidency term indefinitely (“Al Fatah”). 

Through continued effort, Abbas worked to reconcile Fatah and Hamas and a pact was signed in 2011 that enabled the two parties again to form a unified government (“Al Fatah”). And in September of that year, Abbas applied to the United Nations for Palestinian statehood. The opposition of Israel and the U.S. was overpowered in a United Nations vote and Palestine is now recognized as a non-member state in the U.N. (CNN Library). This new rank opens up options for Palestine to pursue international litigation against Israel for their illegal settlements and other issues. A speech by Abbas to the General Assembly of the United Nations highlighted that this was the “last chance to save the two-state solution amid a narrowing window of opportunity” (“Mahmoud Abbas”).

Despite the fact that Palestinian government became splintered under Abbas, he worked to improve the government and policies of Palestinian rule in the West Bank to such a point that the United Nations approved aspects of it as “sufficient for an independent state” (“Mahmoud Abbas”). Abbas, known for his pragmatism and his moderate views, has been working to create peace on the Hamas front as well as the Israeli front with talks and negotiations, and his success in both fronts (i.e., the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the reunification of Hamas and Fatah) is a testament to his drive in truly reaching an accord between all parties (“Mahmoud Abbas”). 

In the elections of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Isma’il Haniya is Hamas’ lead candidate. Born in Gaza’s Al-Shanti’ refugee camp in 1962. He received a degree in Arabic literature from the Islamic University in 1987. In college, he was an activist for Islam and he took part in the Palestinian intifada. He had close ties to former Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and became Yassin’s assistant in 1998. He moved up the ranks in the hierarchy of Hamas, to eventually become Hamas’ choice for prime minister (Barsky). 

Hamas, which means “zeal” in Arabic, is committed to establishing a fully Islamic state in all of Palestine. It was formed it 1987 and has worked to ensure social welfare and armed resistance of Israeli occupation. Hamas, due to suicide bombings and other violent tactics, was designated at a terrorist group by the U.S., the European Union, and Israel (“Palestinian Rivals”). Though the founding principles of Hamas seek Israel’s destruction, leaders of the party have been willing to consider truces of long duration if conditions of Israeli withdrawals are met (Yaghi).

Hamas departs from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood because it considers that current times require holy war, as opposed to some unnamed future “end of days” time period (Barsky). To Hamas, the end of days is upon the world and they will fall on the right side of God by destroying the “evil” Israelis.

The emblem of Hamas reflects its strong ideology. It has a mosque directly in the center of it. It is encircled by two Palestinian flags, each bearing half of the Muslim confession of faith. A map of the territories of Palestine and Israel sits atop the mosque as a representation of the “true territories of Palestine” and there are two crossed swords in front of the mosque, representing the jihad that drives the ideology of Hamas (Barsky). 

The Israeli political parties Likud and Shas gained in popularity around the turn of the millennium. The supporters of Shas identify heavily with a more fundamentalist religious view or are those who identify with a strong unified ethnic ideology. Shas also gained additional support from political moderates who were dissatisfied with the options presented them in their usual parties (Bick).  However, Shas asserts that it is not a political party and instead has proclaimed itself as a religious movement (Wilis). There is more than one religion-based political party in Israel, but the reason Shas has had much success can be seen in the following passage:

“One of the issues that split Shas apart and threatened to destroy unity among its ranks was whether to support Likud or Labor. The majority of Shas’ rank and file is sympathetic to the Likud. Like their Likud counterparts, many Shas followers subscribe to territorial maximalism, despite the fact that they reject Gush Emunim’s notion that the integrity of the Land of Israel is a sine qua non for the Jewish people’s redemption. However, unlike Gush Emunim, Shas’ followers have rarely taken part in militant settlement activities” (Saha).

Militant settlement activities, as well as other isolationist and separatist stands do just that—separate and isolate. Shas has worked to integrate into the many different views of Israel in hopes of replacing secular Zionism with the hegemonic ideology of religious Judaism. This is Shas answer to the cultural and socio-economic grievances voiced by its constituents (Peled). 

The Likud party, of which Benjamin Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, has a charter that refuses to recognize Palestine as a state and asserts Israel’s right to settle Palestinian lands (“Likud Platform”). These positions create a very clear goal and make the opposition of Israel to Palestine very real. This complicates things in the face of Palestine’s insistence that it is a state. The U.N. decision to recognize Palestine further complicates the position of Likud because now two of its founding principles have been ruled invalid by a global peer-group of nations—Palestine is a state, and it can be directly inferred that a neighbor state would not have the right to settle on the foreign soil of its neighbor state without the permission of said state. Unfortunately, when fervent politico-religious groups have a group of defining principles, it has historically been a frequent occurrence that those principles are enforced no matter how incorrect or outdated they may be. The unyielding principles of Likud and Hamas are two sides of the same coin. 

Israel’s Labor party, once headed by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, is the social democratic party (Cook). It would seem that advocating an Israel-Palestine Labor party/Fatah party collaborative would be the best option for the shredded region, as these are the only two parties who would be able to reach a peaceable settlement. The religious fundamentalist parties have it written into their primary directives that neither side should be recognized and surrender or concession is to be instantly rejected. 

The more rational headedness of Fatah has had a great influence in Palestine. It may have its negative points, there may be corruption, but it is a lot easier to set up a workable society when there is not an “everything or die” manifesto in a place like there is on the parties further to the right. 

“:Two years ago I couldn’t have even gone to Nablus, said Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who serves as international envoy to the Palestinians, after a smooth visit. “Security is greatly improved, and the economy is doing much better. Now we need to move to the next stage: politics” (Bronner). Benjamin Netanyahu says that he also wants to help Mahmoud Abbas, but certain indicators suggest this is a two-faced claim.

In a Haaretz news article, Akiva Eldar reports on the Israeli Defense Ministry’s earmarking of 10% of the West Bank for settlement expansion. Eldar explains that Israel’s Civil Administration has been secretly tracking land in the West Bank to try and expand existing Jewish Settlements by naming new parcels of land after them. This information came to light only after the Civil Administration released its maps in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Law. Illegal outpost settlements were placed and maintained and the Civil Administration has been trying to legitimize them. Dror Etkes, an activist against the settlement of the West Bank, asserts that the settlers that built on these plots of land must have had access to the Civil Administration’s maps and data regarding available land in the West Bank and this underscores the absolute involvement of the Israeli government in promoting illegal settlements (in violation of international law) in order to try for and legitimize future land grabs. 

Solutions must be found to these wide-scale disagreements. An earlier Palestinian proposal would make the 1967 borders legally recognized in a final sense. And Jerusalem would be an international zone with a third party intervention (except the US). The Israeli Proposal would keep current borders, demilitarize Hamas, maintain roads between Gaza and the West Bank with security checkpoints, and aid money to Palestine until they can get back on their feet (Kotef).

The counter Palestinian proposal showed that there was an issue between Hamas and the Israeli groups. Israel thought they were debating on current borders while Hamas thought they were debating on 1967 borders. The proposal also said a third party guarantor will come in on the ground for Jerusalem as an international zone, Hamas will sign peace treaty, which will promise to end the violence on either side, and Hamas will demilitarize once the UN recognizes Palestine as a legitimate state with a Security Council vote, which is in their favor because Israel and the US are allies. It was also agreed that Palestinian has established an official statehood military force whom Hamas will hand over all weapons to (Usher 30).

An Israeli concern of who will ensure the safety of the Israeli settlers on the Palestinian land was discussed, and it was suggested that the Palestine military will ensure that there will be safety for IDF and Israeli settlers when passing through Palestine to go to Israel. However, Palestine will have military checkpoints. Within the settlements, Israel may have their own police force to keep peace in their own settlement. However, when they step out, they are under Palestinian jurisdiction (Shafir 611). 

Another, newer Palestinian proposal stated that instead of the 1967 borders, all land in West Bank, South of Jerusalem must become Palestinian. All Israeli settlements must relocate North and all Palestinian settlements must relocate South. This would eliminate the issue of settlements in an “Occupied Palestine.” There will be very explicit borders regarding land and there would be a two-state solution for both sides. We gave up a lot of land in this agreement, so we could have cohesion between the two countries, with no settlements at all. Many Palestinians believe that while there are still settlements in an “Occupied Palestine” there will never be peace (Buttu 98). 

No agreement was made. Israel was not willing to give up Jerusalem as an international zone. They were opposed to giving up settlements in the South of the West Bank. Likud was afraid that they would lose political power, as elections were approaching. I believe they did not want to give up this land because they still want to control the area and be able to conquer Palestine fully in the future. Why settlements were in their favor otherwise was not explained by any of the Israeli parties. They were getting more land and it wouldn’t have been a huge problem to relocate their settlers to the North of Jerusalem in the West Bank with more land and make that land Israeli proper (Klug 148).

According to the examiner, Palestinians will be punished for the recent Palestinian statehood vote. Anthony Martin reports that congress is planning a move to cut off funds earmarked for Palestine. Israel has already imposed a withholding of tax transfers to Palestinians. This dual action would have a drastic effect. In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Hillel Halkin poses a solution to the Israeli-Palestine border conflict:

There is one obvious solution for Israel’s West Bank settlements that has been all but completely overlooked: Let the settlers continue living where they are, but in the state of Palestine. As a conception, it’s stunningly simple. Its very obviousness has rendered it invisible, like something in one’s field of vision that goes unnoticed because it has been there all the time. If over one million Palestinian Arabs can live as they do in town and villages all over Israel, why cannot a few hundred thousand Israeli Jews live, symmetrically, in a West Bank Palestinian state? (Halkin).

The solution seems to make sense. Halkin notes that there are French Canadians who live in Vermont without any bloodshed and suggests that there is an ultimate parity between these two scenarios. Simply adhere to the agreed-upon borders and work out the visa situation of the settlers, just as if Palestine was any other country dealing with foreign citizens living within its borders. This would end the threat of being overtaken by landgrabs in the Palestinian view, and end the threat of hostile removal from one’s home in the settler’s view.

Stephen M. Walt calls out Israel’s 2009 onslaught on Gaza as brutal and misguided. He explains that supporters of Israel won’t criticize Israel because there is a belief that its military and political leaders are brilliant, thoughtful, and dedicated to making the correct choices. A hard-line approach in this creates an opposite view of the Arab world, which is seen as oafish, malevolent—it’s David and Goliath—and neither of these views is helpful to the peace process. Walt then proceeds to detail a string of Israeli military blunders that have weakened its position—the attempted seizure of the Suez Canal, the settlements project, the fostering of Hamas, the formation of Hezbollah, etc.. If detractors of Israeli policy just loudly and publicly call “shenanigans” whenever Israel is engaged in disagreeable actions and tactics, those detractors could help guide Israel toward better choices that parallel what people actually want (Walt).

 In the end, it is necessary for both states to come together to resolve this long-standing issue for each other’s sake; because if they do not, they will both suffer (from wounds done to each other and from the self-damage each country is doing to its international goodwill). Right now there is a lot of support for Palestine, just as there has been for Israel in the past. Usually, this support comes when the country supported has shown level-headedness in trying to deal fairly with irrational opposition. If both nations could just stick to a small few basic agreements that adhered to moralistically benevolent principles, they would save themselves endless troubles.—i.e., there should be a little bit more of the golden rule in this region.

Richard Falk in his paper “Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust,” compares the Israeli activities against the beleaguered nation of Palestine to the most horrendous activity in history: 

Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy (Falk 2).

Thusly described is the solution that will occur for Israel and Palestine. This fact is already becoming clear to the nations of the world. These nations will foster cooperative governance between the two states and the fundamentalists who refuse to work together and only scream for death and victory will be unmasked for the cruel groups that they are. This can be said with certainty because these actions are already occurring. Thus a combination of mediation, personal responsibility on the part of both leaders and citizens, and a willingness to forgive will result in finally finding a long-overdue solution to the strife between Israel and Palestine.

Works Cited

 “Al Fatah.” Times Topics. The New York Times, 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Barsky, Yehudit. “Hamas—The Islamic Resistance Movement of Palestine.” Global Jewish Advocacy. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Bick, Etta. “The Shas Phenomenon and Religious Parties in the 1999 Elections.” Israel Affairs 7. 2000. Web. 9 Dec 2012.

Buttu, Diana. “The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict Review.” Journal of Palestine Studies 40(4) 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

CNN Library. “Mahmoud Abbas – Fast Facts.” CNN.com, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Cook, Rhodes. The Presidential Nominating Process: A Place for Us? Rowman & Littlefield: 2004. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. 118

Eldar, Akiva. “Israel Defense Ministry Plan Earmarks 10 Percent of West Bank for Settlement Expansion.” Haaretz. 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Halkin, Hillel. “What to Do With the Settlements.” The Wall Street Journal, 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 9 Dec. 2010.

Klug, Tony. “One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 10(1) 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Kotef, Hagar and Merav Amir. “Between Imaginary Lines: Violence and its Justifications at the Military Checkpoints in Occupied Palestine” (abstract). Theory, Culture & Society. 28(1) 2001. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

“Likud-Platform.” Knesset.gov.il. (n.d.). Web. 4 Sept. 2008.

 “Mahmoud Abbas.” Times Topics. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Martin, Anthony. “Palestinians to be Punished for Statehood Vote.” Examiner.com, 2 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

“Palestinian Rivals: Fatah & Hamas.” BBC News, 17 June 2007. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Peled, Yoav. “Towards a Redefinition of Jewish Nationalism in Israel? The Enigma of Shas.” Ethnic and Racial Studies. 21(4). 703-727. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Saha, Santosh C. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books: 2004. Web. 9 Dec 2012.

Shafir, Gershon. “Capitalist Binationalism in Mandatory Palestine.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 43(4) 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

“The Palestinian Authority.” Times Topics. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Usher, Graham. “The Democratic Resistance: Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian Elections.” Journal of Palestine Studies 43(3) 2006. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Walt, Stephen M.. “The Myth of Israel’s Strategic Genius.” Foreign Policy. 19 Jan. 2009. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Willis, Aaron P. “Shas—The Sephardic Torah Guiardians: Religious “Movement” and Political Power.” The Elections in Israel 1992. SUNY Press: 1992. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.

Yahgi, Mohammed. “Understanding the Hamas Agenda.” Policy Focus #53. Washington Institute. (n.d.). Web. 9 Dec. 2012.