The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian crisis stands as one of the most pivotal and volatile conflicts in contemporary history. This conflict has not only shattered the social fabric of both sides involved, but has also transcended the boundaries of the Palestinian entity, West Bank, Gaza, and the State of Israel, leading to its characterization as the 'Arab-Israeli Conflict' by international media.

It is imperative to address misconceptions, such as this, throughout this assignment.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undeniably an inflammatory issue, deeply intertwined with socio-political and religious upheavals in the Middle East, and has fueled the rise of radical Islamic governments and movements, along with pockets of terrorism globally.

The core of this strife lies in the appropriation of Palestine, an inherently Arab land for two millennia, by Jewish settlers who arrived against the will of its original inhabitants.

They proclaimed a racially exclusive Jewish state, dispossessed the majority of the indigenous population, and subjugated the remaining in stark violation of international humanitarian law, United Nations Resolutions, and fundamental principles of civilization.

It is essential to recognize that, unlike other conflicts in contemporary history, there have been conscious efforts to displace the indigenous population in this particular case.

As Sir John Glubb astutely observed, the Palestine struggle is a unique and desperate conflict, without parallel in modern history. It is a result of a series of injustices, with the foremost being the violation of the social status and sovereignty of the Palestinian people in their homeland.

This discussion will primarily focus on human rights and emphasize the significance of Palestinian freedom and liberty.

Palestine and Palestinian Arabs: Historical antecedents and socio-political evidences

Historically, the land known as Palestine has been inhabited by a diverse mix of Semitic people, the Canaanites, since around 538 B.C. While the Bible does not offer a clear picture of the ethnic or tribal composition, it does reference the ancient inhabitants as Philistines.

The region has a long history of conflict and has seen various populations, including Christian Arabs, who held significant influence in ancient Jerusalem.

Pagan Arabs also maintained close commercial ties with Palestine and Syria.
The arrival of Jewish settlers marked a significant shift in the region. The earliest settlers, the Jebusite Arabs, found a serene and peaceful land and named it "Uru Salema," which later became Jerusalem, signifying the "city of peace". The Jebusites were eventually followed by the Philistines, after which the region was named Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.

King David briefly established Hebrew hegemony over Jerusalem, leaving notable landmarks, but the struggle for control over the territory continued. The Babylonians took control of Jerusalem, leading to the destruction of the temple and the capture of some Jews. Subsequently, the Romans further altered the landscape, destroying parts of the city and renaming it Jolia Capitolona.

However, the connection between Jerusalem and Islam has deep historical roots. The Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem holds a central place in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Islam's connection to Jerusalem is profoundly rooted in the Quran, as it is the third holiest city in Islam after Makkah and Madinah.

The Quran describes the Prophet Muhammad's nocturnal journey from the Holy Mosque in Makkah to the Distant Mosque in Jerusalem, a journey of immense significance.

The Jews and the state of Israel: tracing the link from ancient to modern times

The term "Israel" has diverse uses within the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, as well as in Catholic writings. It primarily signifies the people of God in the context of salvation history and does not refer to a separate political entity or state.

The concept of Israel was initiated in God's promise to Abraham in the Book of Genesis and the divine Covenant. The Covenant has both national and universal significance. The promise of a specific land was conditional upon the fulfillment of the Covenant, emphasizing Israel's special relationship with God. However, the Bible does not clearly define terms like 'nation' or 'land' within the context of the Covenant.

Over time, various events shaped the destiny of the Israelites. The story of their enslavement and deliverance from Egypt, led by Moses, holds particular significance. Moses was called by God to lead the Israelites to the Sinai in 1447 B.C., reinforcing their special relationship with God.

However, the Israelites strayed from their covenant with God, and both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms faced destruction. A few remnants from the tribe of Benjamin were the only survivors.

The historical narrative also varies among different religious perspectives. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have different interpretations of this history, each shaped by their respective beliefs and theological standpoints. Christians see Israel as having failed to fulfill its divine mission, while Jews eagerly anticipate the restoration of their past glories.

Muslims, meanwhile, view the emergence of Islam as a response to the shortcomings of the Jews and Christians.

In conclusion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply rooted in history, with a complex tapestry of religious, social, and political factors. Recognizing these intricate historical antecedents is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the present-day conflict and for seeking a peaceful resolution that respects the rights and aspirations of both parties involved.
How then have the West contributed to the inflammation of the conflict or peace process?

Zionism and some matters arising from the historical questions

Zionism is a nationalistic movement that seeks to establish an independent Jewish state in Palestine. It has two main sources: the ancient dream of restoring Israel, and the need for a refuge for persecuted Jews everywhere.

Many Jews in exile harbored national feelings and hoped to return to their promised land. Influenced by new prophets, scribes, and teachers, they sought to settle again in what they believed to be their ancestral homeland.

In the mid-nineteenth century, some Jewish thinkers were concerned about the deterioration of Jewish life. One of them was Moses Hess (1812-1875). He argued that Jewish nationalism was the only way to preserve Judaism.

Hess wrote in his book “Rome and Jerusalem,” published in 1862, that “it is only with a national rebirth that the religious genius of the Jews, like the giant of the legend touching mother earth, will be endowed with new strength and again be inspired with prophetic spirit.

No aspirant for Enlightenment, not even a Mendelssohn, has so far succeeded in crushing the hard shell within which Rubbinism has entrusted Judaism, without at the same time destroying the national ideal in its innermost essence… What we have to do at present for the regeneration of the Jewish nation is first to keep alive the hope of the political rebirth of our people and next to re-awaken the hope where it slumbers”.

This idea was further developed to suggest that “… A good, patriotic, national Jew could participate in the culture and political life of the country of residence and have two fatherlands…” Dr. Mezvinsky criticizes Moses Hess for not proposing an exclusive state or a state where non-Jews had equal secular rights and privileges.

In my opinion, this was the origin of Zionism, which is nothing but an extreme Jewish racial and nationalistic ideology. There is hardly a major cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict than the nationalist sentiment that eventually got the name “ZIONISM.”

Interestingly, around the same time that Moses Hess was propagating his ideas, Jews in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere in Europe were advocating a similar concept of reclaiming Palestine and Jerusalem.

By 1883, for example, Baron Edmund de Rothschild of Paris financed a few pioneers to return first to Palestine and establish a struggling settlement as a precursor for the smooth return of others.

A modern adaptation and transformation of a major theme within the Jewish faith had begun. Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) was the main promoter of Zionism as an organized global movement with secular and nationalist political goals.

He was convinced that rampant anti-Semitism, which manifested itself in the Dreyfus Affair in France, could be avoided wherever Jews were in the minority by creating a Jewish state. Herzl elaborated on this and other ideas in his book Ju den Staat (The Jewish State), published in 1895. The book became the classic of the movement he initiated, which adopted the name ZIONISM, a term coined, in 1892, by Nathan Birnbaum (1864-1937).

Mezvinsky provides further background to Herzl’s personality saying that in his early life, he neither associated with Jews nor with Judaism. His Zionism was unquestionably secular-based; he only paid lip service at certain times to his notion of the Messianic tradition for Jews.

Herzl did argue that the Jewish state he envisioned would serve as a blessing not only for the Jews but for all nations worldwide. In 1897, the first Zionist congress took place and the “program of political Zionism” was formulated in these words: “Zionism aims to establish a publicly and legally assured home for the Jewish people in Palestine”.

Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question by Moses Hess: The Origins of Zionism by David Vital: The Origin of Israel: A Documentary History by Norman A. Stillman The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl.

From there, we witness a gradual but noticeable demonstration of the secular orientation and strong advocacy of Jewish radical nationalism. As we may know, Herzl faced strong opposition to his ideas and for using “cultural or spiritual Zionism” to make Palestine a necessary home for the Jews.

Indeed, earlier, some members of the British Parliament had made positive moves to get an “uninhabited part of Africa” under British mandate to avoid possible conflicts with the peaceful Arabs of Palestine.

Prominent Jewish scholars like Asher Ginsburg (1886-1927), commonly known by his pseudonym Ahad Haam, Martin Buber (1878-1969), and others stood against Herzl’s political Zionism. For generations, the Jews have suffered in the hands of several nations. In 1290, they were expelled from Portugal and Spain, England.

The Jews were twice banished from France, once in 1306 and again in 1394. They were exiled from Belgium in 1370 and from Czechoslovakia in 1380. Holland drove them out in 1444.

In Italy, the Jews were evicted in 1540. Germany first exiled them in 1551 and Russia in 1510. Not much of the above history of Jewish exile has received adequate publicity. It was the infamous extermination of six million Jews (one-third of the entire Jewish population of the world), in the European Holocaust by Hitler and the Nazis that unintentionally gave the powerful impetus for Jewish unity and support for Zionism and which eventually led to the establishment in 1948 of the Zionist state of Israel in historic Palestine. One may wonder why the Jews have indeed experienced so many hardships in their history.

The book, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zionism” (Al-Protocolaat Ulamaa-us-Suhyooniyyah), reveals that the Jews believe they have been created for domination and this would be realized in the return of the leader who was to eliminate corruption on the surface of the earth and to establish God’s kingdom. Interestingly, Muslims and Christians agree about this person.

He is Jesus Christ or Prophet Issah (A.S.). For the Jews however, they misinterpret Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Daniel 11:36 to mean the coming Messiah was to descend solely for their benefit and shall reside in Palestine.

Therefore, all Jews must return to the Promised Land before the time. This is not only biblically erroneous; it is historically a fraudulent and biased interpretation of the biblical narratives. Some theologians believe the description the Jews give to the coming leader fits the Dajjal, the one-eyed anti-Christ.

The fallacy is first established in the fact that Zionism contradicts the Old Testament and commands within Judaism to love one’s fellow human beings. This command is all-inclusive, extending to all people, of whatever creed or race.

Unmistakable in this connection is the biblical injunction “to love the stranger as yourself” (Lev.19:24). Deuteronomy 1:16 also advises Jews to “judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him”.

Numbers 15:16 states “One law and one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourns with you”. Why then have the Jews ignored these injunctions and carried on with their occupation and aggression to the extent of passing the ‘Law of Return’ which grants automatic citizenship to any member of the Jewish communities throughout the world on entry to the country? Why have they imposed their system of education on the Arabs and altered the curriculum by teaching ‘the salvation of the land’ theme as a core subject which defines a good land or a saved piece of land as “one that has been transformed to Jewish ownership”.

Moreover, the ‘Law of Return’ was based on the classical Zionist land of Israel theme which advocates one objective: “Among ourselves, it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples together… with the Arabs, we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution … and there is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…”.

To the religious consciousness of the Jews, their living in exile means God living in exile, and their return to the land means God’s return. As the Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel succinctly wrote “intimate attachment to the land, waiting for the renewal of Jewish life in the land of Israel is part of our integrity, an existential fact, unique, sui generis, it lives in our hopes, and it abides in our hearts.

It is a commitment we must not betray… to abandon the land would make a mockery of all our longings, prayers, and commitments. To abandon the land would be to repudiate the Bible…” Modern Jewish-occupied Palestine owes its modicum of success to the British in its Balfour Declaration.

On November 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour issued the following statement on behalf of the British government: “His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

Thus, a mandate for Palestine was assigned to Britain after World War I, and in 1923, effect was given to the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration was aptly described as a document in which “one nation solemnly promised to a second the country of a third”.

The Declaration, according to Dr. Henry Cattan, did not receive the approval of the international community at the time nor did it receive the approval of the British House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Lords declaring the Palestinian mandate to be unacceptable (because of the Balfour Declaration), was carried on June 21, 1922, by 60 to 29.

This meant, in effect, the abrogation of the Declaration. However, with legislative concurrence and approval, the British government went ahead to accept the mandate. After World War I ended, the Allied Powers laid the framework for peace. They adopted an Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations (which was incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919).

These principles were to govern the future of the people detached from Turkey as a result of the war. The Palestinians were among the people concerned. Article 22 provided that “the well-being and development of such people form a sacred trust of civilization” and that “their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory provision. However, article 22 of the Covenant for instance violated the tenets of the Balfour Declaration.

Some analysts argue that from the beginning, the Declaration was Zionistically designed to dispossess the Arabs. A relevant example to be cited here is that in the following year after the Declaration, precisely March 1918, Weizman arrived in Jerusalem as the head of a Zionist Commission. At first, he was deeply disappointed by his discovery.

On April 18, he wrote to his wife, “… it was sad, very sad. We have so little here, hardly a single Jewish institution to delight the eye or the heart. But instead, how much alien power, threatening and austere minarets, and bells, cupolas reaching up to the skies: a constant reminder that Jerusalem is not a Jewish town”.

His heart cried out, he told his wife when he saw the Jewish quarter, “…filth and infection, indescribable poverty, century-old ignorance, and fanaticism. To organize Jerusalem, to bring some order into this hell, will take a long time and need much strength, courage, and patience. “The war had taken a terrible toll on all the population of Palestine. The number of Jews had fallen from about 80,000 to 55,000”.

Accordingly, Weizman wrote to Lord Balfour on 30 May 1918 that “it does not take into account the superiority of the Jew to the Arab, the fundamental difference between Arab and Jew”. Lord Balfour in turn wrote to the Prime Minister at the time in a sympathetic move saying “The point of our position of course is that in the case of Palestine, we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination”.

However, this was not to favor the Palestinians. The idea that “Palestine is geographically practically in the center of the British Empire” was already popular in the minds of the public.

Since this fraudulent declaration, Zionists have systematically wiped out their Palestinian landlords, decimated countless villages and their inhabitants, and also caused more than two million Palestinians to be displaced and live in refugee camps in adjacent Arab countries.

Israel and the West accuse the Arabs of aggression and “terrorist activities”. Earlier, the United Nation’s plan was to divide Palestine into an Arab and Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel was militarily assured security by the United States (Uncle Sam) and the United Kingdom (United Killers).

For that matter, the Israeli army attacked the Arabs and conquered fifty percent (50 %) more territory than allotted to them. An armistice ensued, but the Arabs refused to make a peace treaty.

Despite their stance which has been carried on till the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yasir Arafat, Israel has expanded its occupation and usurpation of the Golan Heights, the entire West Bank, Gaza, Sinai Peninsula, and primarily the city of Jerusalem.

Much bloodshed, bombings, suicides, and just any evil that could befall man have been experimented on in Pon Palestine. Islamist freedom fighters have consolidated themselves into vibrant organizations like Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al Qasim Brigade, and Al Fattah have reconstructed the way forward in their understanding of the conflict issues.

Their plight is widely known to Arabs, Muslims, Jews, and non-Jews and everybody seems to have a fair knowledge of their situation. On the Muslim front, rhetoric seems to be fruitless. That is why they compose radical poems to keep the passion for resistance high.

For example, an Arabic lecturer of philology is translated this way: “Right restored in the Security Council, rather in the (military) recruitment office; a two-thousand-paged speech is no match for an iron-made missile.”

It is clear, then, that no other conflict in history resembles the Palestine-Israel conflict. All militant Islamic organizations, so-called terrorists, attribute their major grievance to the umbilical cord in Jerusalem and the sovereignty of Palestinians.

The solution to the crises is still elusive when the livelihood of one party is being eroded at the expense of another. When killings of prominent Muslim clerics like Sheikh Yasin and his immediate successors, and the deliberate blocking of medical and food aid were perpetuated, when Yasir Arafat died as a result of the effects of house arrest and the refusal of Israel to allow him access to medical support remains fresh in the minds of the Arabs, when the road map is already in place and not until water, light, shelter, and the fundamental human rights of the Palestinians are recognized and the rule of law is truly restored for all, not when after a genuinely held democratic election is won infavourr of Muslims and the West refuses to recognize the elected government, then violence may forever be the fate of the region. How then have the West contributed to the escalation of the conflict or peace process?

International interventions and the impact of the west on the issues

In an article entitled ‘The Arab-Zionist Conflict and the Invariables of American Policy’, Mohammad Kamal states that Zionism and American Foreign Policy are intertwined programs. He mentions politics, economics, and the military as the triangular domains of Western impact on the Palestine-Israel conflict.

The history of the political sovereignty of the Jews is largely the history of the West’s machinations. It was the West’s instrumentality that on the 11th of September 1922, Britain's Mandate on Palestine was declared.

On March 4, 1949, a year after the Sovereign state of Israel was declared; the United States was quick in granting Israel membership of the United Nations General Assembly. As a result, Palestine is socio-politically and militarily under siege. In 1950, the UU.S. guaranteed the safety of Israel in the Tripartite Declaration issued by the U.S.A, Britain, and France.

Interestingly, some scholars think that the U.S. and the West’s relentless aid to Israel is sometimes perceived by them to be more of a religious obligation than political, or simply mundane.

For example, America gave a political sport to Israel to freely navigate in the Tiran strait as a reward for its participation in the Tripartite Aggression against Egypt in 1956. And in 1967; the same U.S. backed the Zionist Israeli state to occupy the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan.

On September 4, 1975, the United States signed a memorandum of Strategic Understanding with Israel in which the former agreed to immediate consultation in case of international pressure requesting its withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories in the implementation of the UN resolutions.

The Memorandum also determined the nature of diplomatic and non-diplomatic support it could offer to Israel. Indeed, the same Memorandum was reactivated on March 26, 1979. At the peak of the US’ staunch support for Israel is their misuse of the veto to approve of the perpetual extermination of the Paine. By 1990, America had vetoed six times against the nation of Israel in the Security Council for the invasion of Lebanon on 5th June 1982, and the consequent human rights abuses and war crimes of Israel. As we have seen, the State of Israel is fully blessed and backed by the United States.

In the realm of economics, it was the United States that played a pivotal role in offering technical and financial support from 1953 to 1964 through the Johanson Project, aimed at facilitating the division of water resources between Israel and the Arab states.

This endeavor involved the redirection of the Jordan River toward the Negev region. Additionally, the United States maintains its unwavering financial backing of Israel, coupled with the provision of cutting-edge technology. It is worth noting that between 1970 and 1980, U.S. aid to Israel surged from $500 million to $4 billion.

In the military sphere, the United States and Israel have established a mutually beneficial relationship, marked by the exchange of intelligence information regarding Arab states since January 22, 1970. This collaboration extends to military aid, which has seen a fourfold increase.

This has even resulted in the establishment of an air bridge connecting the United States and Tel Aviv, as well as the creation of two air bases within the Negev region. As outlined by Mohammad Kamal in his work, "Invariables of American Policy," a significant agreement reached in May 1986 incorporated the Zionist entity into the American Strategic Defense Agreement, often referred to as "Star Wars."

Consequently, Israel assumed the role of a prominent ally in this initiative. Furthermore, this agreement mandated close cooperation between Zionist companies and their American counterparts in the development and production of counter-missile technology, ensuring Israel's decisive superiority over all Arab states in the realm of military technology.

In light of these circumstances, one may ponder the role and stance of the American public in influencing their government's policies and mitigating potential biases. I leave it to you to draw your conclusions on this matter. It is worth noting that the United States is a nation characterized by unique ideological and political intricacies and contradictions.

In any case, I trust that the objective of this section has been effectively met, demonstrating the closely intertwined relationship between the United States and Israel.

These two nations share a profound connection, with their destinies intricately linked. For the Palestinian people, the path to liberation from the occupation of their homeland does not lie in mere rhetoric but, rather, in a resolute approach known as the Intifada.

This strategy can be understood through the scientific principle that states, "Every object remains at rest until a force is applied to it." Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge the reciprocal nature of actions and reactions. History has consistently shown that the suppression of a population invariably leads to resistance and uprising.

Conclusion and recommendation

The classification of Palestinian groups like the PLO, Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, and Al-Qasim Brigades as terrorist organizations is a deeply divisive and complex issue, with multiple perspectives and interpretations.

Perspective 1: Defenders of Freedom and Rights

From the perspective of some Palestinians, these groups are seen as freedom fighters, patriots, and nationalists. They argue that these organizations have emerged in response to what they perceive as an unjust occupation and oppression of their land. To them, these groups represent a form of resistance, and they believe that their actions are aimed at achieving self-determination and securing their rights.

Perspective 2: International Designations

On the other hand, international bodies such as the United Nations and several countries classify these groups as terrorist organizations. This designation is based on their use of violence, including attacks against civilians. Many countries maintain that these groups' actions have had a detrimental impact on the peace process and civilian populations.

Perspective 3: A Spectrum of Beliefs

Within this conflict, there is a spectrum of beliefs and opinions. While some individuals within the Palestinian territories may support these groups, others may not. Similarly, in Israel and the international community, there are varying opinions regarding these designations.

Perspective 4: Impact on the Peace Process

The categorization of these groups as terrorists or freedom fighters has a significant impact on the peace process. Supporters of these organizations argue that they serve as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and should be part of negotiations. Critics argue that their use of violence undermines diplomatic efforts.

Perspective 5: Human Rights Concerns

Human rights organizations have also expressed concerns about the actions of these groups, particularly regarding civilian casualties and human rights violations. They emphasize the need for all parties to respect international humanitarian law.

In essence, the labeling of Palestinian groups as terrorists or freedom fighters is a matter of contentious debate, reflecting the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is essential to consider and respect various perspectives while seeking a path toward a peaceful resolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afaad, A. M. (1982). Khatar Al Yahud (Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zionism). Dar Al Kitab Al Arabiyy.
Banire, B. A. (1996). Top Secret (25th ed.). Lagos: Al Bayan Islamic Publication Limited.

Carson, M. J. (2021, July). The Emotional Heschel. Dissertations - ALL. Retrieved October 30, 2023, from https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2423&context=etd.

Chomsky, N. (1983). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. New York: South End Press.

Dickson, K. A. (1969). The History and Religion of Israel (from Hezekiah to the Return from Exile). London: Longman & Todd Ltd.

Hallami, B. B. (1993). Original Sins, Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel. Haifa: Olive Branch Press.

Quigley, J. (1990). Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice. Ohio: Duke University Press.

Wells, H. G. (1920). An Outline of History. London: Aztec Publications.