ISRAEL AND PALESTINE CONFLICT
Search for a feasible solution.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be described as an existential conflict between two peoples-two identity groups-each of which claims the same territory for its national homeland and political state. In such a conflict, the identity and the very existence of the other represent a threat to each group’s own identity and existence. In this context, periodic bloodshed between Israel and Palestine continues relentlessly. So, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the origin and root cause of this conflict to devise a practical solution for this highly divisive issue affecting the world peace.
ORIGIN OF CONFLICT: The origin can be traced to Jewish exiles that happened in ancient times when the land was conquered by the Romans. Later, it was taken over by the Arabs, who are residing there today.
Conflict changed gear in the late 19th century when the Jews created a movement for relocating to the land they felt were given to them by God based on the accounts in the Bible. This saw rise in national movements- Zionism and Arab nationalism. Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897, largely as a response to Russian and European anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine so that they might find sanctuary and self determination there.
Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the control of the United Kingdom. The Paris Peace Conference and subsequent conferences made Palestine a British mandate. The League of Nations approved, and more Jews entered Palestine. Palestine Arabs resented this “immigration” into their homeland. The British tried to maintain a precarious peace, but Hitler’s anti-Semitic policy increased the influx of Jews into Palestine and caused further Arab resentment.
This violence and the heavy cost of World War II led Britain to turn the issue of Palestine over to the United Nations. In 1947, the U.N. approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states- one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but Palestinian Arab leaders, supported by the Arab League, rejected the plan, and a civil war broke out. Israel quickly gained the upper hand in this inter-communal fighting, and on May 14, 1948 declared its independence.
For decades after 1948, Arab governments had refused to recognize Israel and in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded with the central tenet that Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, is the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. In turn, Israel refused to recognize the PLO as a negotiating partner.
In the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and East Jerusalem including the Old City and its holy sites, which Israel annexed and reunited with the western neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The status of the city as Israel’s capital and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip created more conflict between the parties.
BARRIERS TO EVERLASTING PEACE: The peace process since the Oslo negotiations of 1993 had raised great hopes that an agreement would be achieved in a foreseeable future. This process, however, failed. Later this problem has been discussed enough over the decades. Today the question is rather: “What prevents the actors from taking the necessary steps leading to a solution”? Why is the negotiation process not going ahead, or why a new negotiation process is not getting into motion?” The barriers that are creating hindrances are given hereunder:
The Palestinian Perspective: The Palestinian problem apparently serves as a uniting factor in the intra-Arab arena because it is shared by all, preoccupies all, and serves as an intra-Arab test of solidarity. Those devoted to the concept of pan-Arabism fear that resolution of the Palestinian problem will hurt the cause of Arab unity because that problem has been a central factor in the formation of this unity since 1948.
Status of the occupied territories: “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is the term used by the UN to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip—territories which Israel conquered from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War—in the conflict. The Israeli government uses the term“Disputed Territories”, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.
Palestinian refugees: There are about four million Palestinians and their descendants who were expelled or fled from Israel following its creation. Palestinian negotiators have so far insisted that refugees, and all their descendants, from the 1948 and 1967 wars have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, including those within the 1949 Armistice lines, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194, adopted in 1948.
Control of Jerusalem: One of the most hotly-debated issues is who should have control over Jerusalem. Both Israel and Palestine consider Jerusalem to be their capital. Over the course of the years, the distinction between the city’s holy and historical sites and its municipal territory has been blurred, as well as the distinction between the religious-historical myth and the national-political ethos of the two peoples claiming sovereignty over the city.
Israeli settlements: The presence and ongoing expansion of existing settlements by Israel and the construction of settlement outposts is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process. The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal, and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel’s construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Water Rights: Control over fresh water is also a pressing issue. The disputed land sits in a desert where drinking water is scarce. Well drilling, plumbing, and the ability to move this resource from place to place is a matter of intense debate and strife. There isn’t usually enough for both countries to have unlimited access, and the ability to control distribution is a major source of power.
Unrestrained violence: Violence has also been a persistent part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians have frequently used violence in an attempt to rattle the Jews, reclaim the territory, and allow their refugees to return to their former land; the Israel, in turn, has let loose its forces to dismantle any resistance from Palestinians time and again.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION: The world is in no position to impose any particular solution to the conflict, partly because that solution must emerge from political negotiations, and partly because it is the Palestinians’ prerogative to specify what they want and what they can accept, since they are the only party to the conflict with no state, no rights and no freedom. On the other hand, Israel’s own survival is dependent upon making peace with its neighbors. Israel, like every other country, does not exist in isolation; it must reach an accommodation with the countries surrounding it.
What the world can offer, however, are elements which are essential to any political solution. Without all of them being present, no solution will work. These essential elements are:
National expression for the two peoples: (Two state) solution offers a realistic prospect for lasting peace and attainable justice for Israelis and Palestinians.
- For Palestinians, obtaining their own state means an end to decades of occupation, acknowledgment of their past suffering, the fulfillment of their national aspirations and an opportunity to shape their own destiny at last.
- For Israelis, a two-state solution ends the demographic challenge to Israel’s character as a Jewish-majority state, removes the stigma of being an occupying power, enables a lasting peace with the entire Arab world and eliminates a critical barrier to full international acceptance.
Viability: Whatever forms a Palestinian state takes; it must be viable as well as sovereign. It must control its borders, basic resources; possess territorial contiguity and, above all, the ability to develop a viable economy.
The refugee issue: Resolution of this issue should include a healing process which could lead to reconciliation between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. This involves a “package” of three elements – (a) Israeli acknowledgement of its responsibility in resolving the refugee issue; (b)Israeli acknowledgement of the refugees’ right of return; (c) and only then, technical solutions involving a mutually agreed upon combination of repatriation, resettlement and compensation be developed.
Security: Israel, of course, has fundamental and legitimate security needs, as do the Palestinians and all the countries of the region. But the notion of Israel that security can be achieved only through military means is out of context, until the underlying causes of the conflict are addressed in totality. Israel’s assertion that the security issue be resolved before any political progress is as illogical as it is self-serving.
A regional dimension: The almost exclusive focus on Israel/Palestine has obfuscated another crucial dimension of the conflict: its regional context. Refugees, security, water, economic development, democratization – none of these key issues can be effectively addressed within the narrow confines of Israel/Palestine. Adopting a regional approach opens new possibilities of resolving the conflict in a larger context that may add flavour to two-state solution approach.
CONCLUSION: No balance of power lasts forever. A genuine resolution of the conflict will become possible in the longer term, given a change in the present balance of power. In this regard, two interconnected and mutually reinforcing processes may be vital for changing the present balance of power- (1) decline in American global dominance, and in particular in the ability of the US to go on backing Israeli regional hegemony without incurring unacceptable economic and political costs; (2) a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab States– most likely in the form of regional federation.
It may or may not be possible to foresee exactly how this change may come about. But it seems quite certain that it will not be confined to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians as it will necessarily involve tectonic movements in the entire region, as well as international global shifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment