A Battle for Identities

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been a source of contention since the nineteenth century, and it does not seem to have an end in sight. Based on their history, the Jews’ and Arabs’ conflict includes differences in religion, disputes over borders and ideology, and adverse interferences of great powers. Influential European societies and Western civilizations maintained that Palestine was the home of the Jews, and this notion disturbed the indigenous Arab population. Indeed, their emotional and violent battles continue in present day and lead others around the world to wonder if their conflict will ever subside. However, it seems that their conflict will likely survive because it is an unresolved argument over the division of the Holy Land and a battle for identities. Essentially it is our human nature to define ourselves by our identities and cultures. However, in the present West Bank and Gaza, children are born into war. They watch as their homes are bulldozed to the ground and their family members and friends killed by Israeli occupation. Palestinian refugees continue to grow in numbers, and in turn, they recruit young children to fight in their war. Deprived of a childhood and conditioned to be martyrs, the Palestinian’s future generations will continue to believe they must keep their people safe from the Israelis and thus they will keep the conflict alive. 

The following four sections describe Arab and Jew early history, religious differences, disagreements over borders and ideology, and adverse interferences of great powers. Each of the elements provides a background as to why the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to evolve. Because the chances for resolution depend on future generations, one must consider the vital chain of events that have led the Palestinian and Israeli people to distrust and dislike one another. Overall, they each battle for an identity. 

Historical Context

Although Jews and Arabs had religious differences, the two societies lived amongst each other in relative peace in the earlier portion of their history.  In fact, in their book History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner emphasize “Mythically, Arab and Jews have a common origin” (4). Notably, the two cultures believe that they are the offspring of Abraham, so they each profess to be the genuine owners of the Holy Land. On the other hand, while their mythical foundation appears to be similar, both Arab and Jew ideology are difficult to describe. 

For the most part, we define early Arabs as those who speak Arabic and practice Islam, but the majority of Arabs in the early Middle East were actually Christians. Nevertheless, European colonialism disagreed with Muslim theology and held the conviction that Arabs believed in a man named Muhammad as their god. While it is true that Arabs believed that Muhammad was their “One True God” (7), this does not imply they did not have common values as their Jewish counterparts. Instead, each religion bases its faith on one god. While their gods go by different names, the Arabs and Jews were monotheistic. 

On another note, Judaism’s origin is difficult to place, but it is widely believed to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world. According to the Torah, five books that elaborate the Jewish holy text, the father of Judaism was Abraham. Likewise, Abraham worshiped one god, and his faith spread around the region. In addition, after the Babylonian exile, Jews settled into parts of the Middle East, and they slowly became to think of the regions as their homeland. 

Nevertheless, the early Arabs’ and Jews’ monotheistic approach to religion suggests they had a common core of values. Essentially, they both believed “that the state should exist to do God’s will” (8). This reveals the basic misconception that religion is the central cause of their conflict. Neither Arabs nor Jews had rights to their own state. Christianity and Islam are “universal religions whereas Judaism remained the religion of a single group” (9). As predominately Christian and Muslim, For the most part, religions around the world have similarities, and, in this case, Arab and Jews worshiped one god. However, Arabs are the indigenous population, so they actually extended their home to the Jews and they shared their fertile land. Their affinity for the land that surrounded Palestine developed into a bitter conflict that continues to this day. 

Religious Differences Propel Border and Ideology Disagreements

It is a common misconception to blame religion for the Arab-Israeli conflict; however, the revolt seems to have little to do with Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, and, instead, it begins with the Jewish independent group called the Zionist movement. Zionists planned to obtain the Holy Land in any way that they could. Ultimately, the early Jews were not a violent group, but the Zionist movement wanted to protect Jews against anti-Semitism, and, in their desire, they created resentment and propelled future civil wars. Because early Jews lost their homes and their political rights, and the Zionist movement wanted to reestablish their independence. In essence, “Zionism is attacked by opponents as an imperialistic movement because of its approach to the Arab population of Palestine … [and their] identical attitudes towards indigenous non-European peoples” (24). In other words, Zionists did not believe the Arabs should have such a large population in the Holy Land because they were uneducated and violent. In addition, the Jewish people had been persecuted for many years, so Zionists suggested that they had suffered enough. Scholars contend that Theodor Herzl was the political force behind Zionism, and he believed that “A Jewish homeland…could serve the needs of Jews and anti-Smites alike” (40). His propaganda propelled Zionism into an international force. Nevertheless, Britain agreed that the Jews belonged in their homeland. Regardless, it seemed as though Britain had their own agenda when creating the documents because each “side felt betrayed” (35). In other words, each side thought that Great Britain would choose one side’s ideals over the others.

The Balfour Declaration decided that it was only right that the Jewish people reside in their national home, but its terms were vague. Initially, the White Paper proposed that Jews would have a national home, but Arabs had to agree to the number of Jewish immigrants who arrived at their country. In addition, the White Paper implied that Palestine would be equally governed by Arabs and Jews. For the most part, Arabs and Jews rejected the White paper of 1939; however, they were at odds when it came to the Balfour Declaration. Essentially, both documents appear to make contradictory promises; and both seem to be the result of compromises that failed to fully satisfy either Jews or Arabs; however, Jews accepted the Balfour Declaration. Nevertheless, “The phrases ‘in Palestine’ and ‘a national home’ left the proposed entity vague and without defined borders” (39). With the absence of borders, Britain seemed to suggest the whole land belonged to the Jews. Therefore, the initial reaction of the indigenous Arabs was disconcertment and “the roughly 500,000-strong Arab community within the Palestine remained opposed to the mandate and to Zionism,” and they decided that the Balfour Declaration only protected Jews (45). Indeed, Britain did not consider the Arabs’ need for home and identity, and they only wanted to keep control over the land’s oil.  Arabs were slowly losing their rights, so they resisted.  Accordingly, because it had been the Arabs’ ancestral home for thousands of years, it seemed as though the Jewish community was invading their territory. At the same time, Arab peasants did not oppose the Jewish immigration because this meant they were still allowed to work on their land and in that way continue to make a living. 

In short, Britain disregarded the Arabs as they moved Jews into their land. The British government ruled Palestine and their actions “created considerable resentment among the inhabitants of Palestine, both Jews and Arabs” (35). It is this resentment that has grown over the years. Because the Balfour Declaration “lends credence to the saying that Palestine was ‘the much-promised land,’” the British created an insatiable need for home and religious identity (38). Basically, Palestine became a home that represented God’s people. Clearly, if one believes he or she has the ultimate acceptance of his or her higher power, one will want that for his or her future generations. However, Arabs did not play a role in the Holy Land because the Balfour Declaration determined that Palestine was the “national home for the Jewish people” (39). Therefore, the Zionists were able to further their agenda because they had Britain’s support. Instead of peaceful accommodations, Palestine began to demonstrate violent attributes. For example, the Zionists argued that they cultivated Palestine, but they had to deal with hostility from Bedouins, so they were only able to use violence to fight back (16). At the same time, the Arabs claimed that the Zionists started the violent attacks. Subsequently, the lack of clearly established borders hurt the Arabs and Israelis. While Britain declared that “nothing would be done that might prejudice the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities’ in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries” (39), their declaration would prove to be elusive. 

Moreover, the British and Zionists did not take into account the differing opinions amongst the Arabs. The Arabs were not united in their beliefs like the Jews were. Furthermore, it seems as though Britain and France did not want to give the Arabs any individual power. While they were free to continue working for the Jews, their lack of independence contributed to the current contention. Incidentally, Arabs did not oppose Jewish settlement in the late 19th and early 20th century (27).  However, “Palestine was at a critical juncture as far as relations between Palestinian Arabs and Jews were concerned… [because the] rapidly increasing Jewish population” had different ideas than their traditional Jewish counterparts (29). In addition, after the Holocaust, the Arabs’ suspicions grew while the surviving Jews were entitled to more rights and more land. 

Adverse Interferences of Great Powers

The aftermath of the Holocaust motivated the Jews to move into Palestine. The surviving Jews realized that they were not safe in other parts of the world. In addition, superpowers such as Britain and the United States felt like they needed to make up for the Nazi regime. However, “The Palestinian Arabs wanted an end to Jewish immigration and an independent Arab State…[and] the Palestinian Jews wanted a Jewish state” (73). Unfortunately, at this time the Holocaust survivors needed a home. Displaced persons (DPs) remained a source of concern for Britain and the United States. At the same time, each country wanted to have access to Palestinian oil, so keeping tabs on this part of the world was one of their main concerns. 

Nevertheless, it seemed that Palestine was the safest place for Jews to live due to pervasive anti-Semitism. The Jews’ initial homes were virtually destroyed, so they had no other place to go. Incidentally, while the United States felt responsible for the surviving Jews, they did not consider relocating them to America. Earl G. Harrison claimed “the majority of the DPs wanted to go to Palestine…” but others have noted that many of them would have liked to have gone to the United States or other European nations (pg. 75).  However, Bevin wanted to keep a friendly relationship with the Arabs due to their oil, so he did not agree to the number of DPs. In actuality, Bickerton and Klausner argue “that Bevin’s refusal to admit… [100,000] DPs at this point was a serious error in judgment” (pg. 76). Possibly, Bevin was acting out of self-interest, but we cannot assume his mistake was the basis of the future battles. Because public officials placed so much emphasis on a holy territory, both Arabs and Jews wanted to believe they were God’s chosen people. 

 Consequently, Arabs already considered Palestine their home, so the prospect of Jewish dominance was a valid concern. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) determined that they should give Palestine independence and recommended that they partition the Arab and Jewish state. While there was supposed to be an economic union between the state, the land division was poorly constructed. Unfortunately, it seemed that the representatives used Zionist influence as the major basis of their decision. Subsequently, the United Nation’s Partition Plan offered Jews the richest portions of Palestine. While Arabs made up the majority of Palestine, the UN provided Jews, the minority, more land as well. As a result, a ruthless massacre resulted in displaced Arabs. On the other hand, even as thousands of Arab refugees inhabited camps, Arabs and Jews came to a temporary agreement in order to maintain peace. It is likely they would have been able to respect one another without Britain’s interference. Britain deemed Palestine as the Jews’ homeland. Consequently, the Arabs felt threatened as they became the minority. As the Jews took to relocating into their alleged homeland, they offered Arabs opportunities to work on their farms. Nevertheless, animosity began to grow as each community sought to claim Palestine as their homeland. In addition, it seems that the Jews developed an unhealthy form of identity. Jews proclaimed they were not only a race, but “an ethnic group, a religious group, and a cultural group” (4). Basically, their identity was that they were the chosen people. In addition, while a national home for Jews implied eventual political sovereignty, Arabs were left out. Without an identity, Arabs began to harbor malice. Needless to say, Arabs’ and Jews’ distrust of one another transferred to their children. As each side retaliated against the other, the Holy Land was submersed in blood.

The Unrelenting Quest for Identity

According to Bickerton and Klausner, “A homeland provides nourishment, permanency, reassurance, and an identification with the soil, and it provides historical ties of identity. Looked at in this way, we can quickly see that Palestine/Israel takes on special significance to the two groups who have been in such bitter conflict for almost a century” (9). From the thirteenth to the early twentieth century, the Islam influenced the Ottoman Empire ruled the region. However, Western power destroyed it during World War I. Controlled by Britain and France, the Middle East began to divide and then decline in world economic, military and cultural importance. It seemed Arabs and Jews placed a considerable amount of importance on the identity of the chosen people. Because Jews suffered the anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, their need transpired due to the lack of control they experienced. Carted from one region to another, they lacked a sense of home and security. At the same time, Arabs lost the majority of their land. They no longer feel as though they have a home, and without a home, they lost their identity. Incidentally, a large portion of current Palestinians do not consider themselves as human beings but the ultimate sacrifices for their people. 

Both Israelis and Arabs suffered identity oppression, and each group is guilty of violent attacks. Because it is an ancient problem, many people suggest that there will never be a solution. However, they are misconceptions because the media only allows us to hear a portion of what goes on. Determined to control a fertile land, Israeli settlements and law and the constant presence of military will lead future Palestinian generations to experience perpetual fears. Ultimately, the refugee Palestinians’ identities only know lives immersed in they live military occupation. In other words, they do not have civil rights because they are under military and settler rule. What is more, Zionists were similar to the Nazis because they basically considered surviving Jews a problem. Ironically, Jews did not see Zionism “as a solution to the traditional Jewish problems of economic, political, social, religious, and racial oppression in Europe” (26). While the root cause of the violence was more or less a defense to anti-Semitism ideologies, the land of Palestine was considered an empty region as Jewish immigrants began to enter. Unfortunately, Arabs populated the land.

Bickerton and Klausner acknowledge that: The case of the Arabs of Palestine was based on the principles of international justice; it was that of a people which desired to live in undisturbed possession of the country where Providence and history had placed it. The Arabs of Palestine could not understand why their right to live in freedom and peace, and to develop their country in accordance with their traditions, should be questioned and constantly submitted to investigation. One thing was clear; it was the sacred duty of the Arabs of Palestine to defend their country. (92)

Militant Palestinians embrace “Jihad [or the] means to struggle or survive” (9), so as their children witness the battles, they are conditioned to believe that death is better than life. Because once they die, they become martyrs and are finally welcome in a Holy Land. 

While some believe that future Israeli and Palestinian Arab generations will end the conflict, it has become so ingrained in their history, that it is unlikely that their children or grandchildren will be able to abandon their conditioned identities. Indeed, Jewish immigration continues to saturate the region due to settlements. Essentially, as the settlements grow, the Palestinians will have to constantly move or battle for their current homes. The Palestinian refugees only know the insecurity of those who have no home. In addition, the camps are unfit and do not allow the basic human necessities such as water.

In a sense, the Arabs were victims of the Holocaust as well because they offered a home to surviving Jews, yet they paid the price for the Nazi’s regime. Nowadays, the military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza denies Palestinians their right to identity. Initially, Arabs were able to work and provide income for their families because Jews were able to procure better jobs. However, as in 1974, while the PLO indicated that the West Bank and Gaza should become a Palestinian Arab state, some Israelis determined this was a ploy to destroy Israel (183). Their unwillingness to provide rights to the Palestinian refugees will only lead to constant retaliation.  

Moreover, the new Israel seems to be unwilling to give up their identity as God’s people and claim God’s supposed Holy Land. Retaliation and “Attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad within Israel itself had become more common and more deadly” (271), so like the Gaza War of 2008-2009 was responsible for more deaths and destruction, it seems the terrorism within the country will only add to the innocent civilians’ ,on both sides, death toll. Also, the younger generations have been conditioned to believe that “the Palestinians struggle for personal identity and national autonomy had been that the Arab world had generally treated them as political pawns for political purposes” (227). In sum, the boundaries remain unclear, so it would be difficult at this point to create a Palestinian state. In addition, each side continues to hold Jerusalem in high regard. On one side, Palestinians continue to suffer oppression based on Israeli occupation. On the other hand, Israelis feel that it is necessary in order to provide security for their people. Therefore, as Jewish settlements and military occupants increase, Palestinian refugees will increase. Israel has to hold accountability for removing the Palestinians in the first place, but even if they were to do so, it may not be possible for Palestinians to accept it. 

We typically form our identities based on our ancestors’ ideals or our present culture. In essence, those ideals and cultures provide the foundation. If we build our foundation on shaky ground, our identity is uncertain.  Some suggest it would only take a few new leaders to fix the damage and end the conflict, but the new leaders would have to grow up in isolation in order to reach new conclusions. As of now, the West Bank and Gaza are critical areas, but they are saturated with terroristic notions and retaliation because that is all that they know. In hindsight, the Arabs and Israelis had the potential to become one community, but Zionism and British influence led them to believe in an alleged Holy Land. Therefore, in order to eliminate the crisis, one would have to eliminate the Zionist movement and Britain’s contradictory rules. Obviously, we cannot erase history. Instead, the Arab-Israeli conflict will remain unresolved regardless of the United States’ or other countries’ interference. It takes the people within a community to make changes, but if the community only bases itself on the hearsay of a Holy Land, the community will remain doomed. 

Work Cited

Bickerton, Ian J., and Carla L. Klausner. A History of the Arab-Israeli Dispute. 6th ed. N.p.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.