This is my final semester paper from a foreign policy seminar I attended about Middle East Policy.  Mostly the class was about Iraq, but I sort of took the direction that most of the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East can be solved by fixing Israel and Palestine.  Keep in mind, I haven't finished editing it, and need to add a little bit to it at the end, but here it is.  Also as a beginning warning, I know many will disagree with me, which is fine, but if you aren't going to constructively debate, don't bother posting, your comments will not be approved if you can't discuss points and resort to non-constructive ad-hominem attacks.

        

            In the Iraq Study Group Report, the committee lists many recommendations to U.S. policymakers on how to rectify the problems that have occurred as a result of the war in Iraq.  In regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the group quite bluntly said, “The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.”[1]  The United States is the only country in the world that can broker a satisfactory peace between Israel and the Palestinians as the United States is the world’s only superpower.  Much has been accomplished in the peace process, but every time peace talks break down, new violence flares up.  Both sides do not trust each other enough to come to any agreements without the help of other parties, especially the United States.  At times it seems neither side is truly dealing in good faith with the other.  Israel continues builds new settlements and expands existing settlements in the Occupied Territories; the Palestinian Authority does not use its security forces to help provide basic security for Israel and stop the terrorist attacks.  It is the responsibility of the United States to ensure that both sides come to an agreement and that both sides live up to the agreed settlement when one is finally made.  Both sides must deal in good faith with each other for an agreement to be made and to install a lasting peace. 

Background

Ever since the scattering of the Jews by the Roman legions under Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish people have longed for a return to their homeland.  This desire has been labeled Zionism.  In Europe, there is a long tradition of anti-Semitic racism culminating in the Holocaust where over 6 million Jews were killed.  In response to the horrors of the Holocaust, as well as prior commitments of the British government that controlled Palestine, that in 1948 the State of Israel was established by the United Nations as a national homeland for the Jews, without any thoughts towards adequate compensation for the displacement of those already living on the affected land.  Immediately, the Arabs, many of whom had been displaced by the formation of Israel, declared war on the fledgling state and the first Arab-Israeli war started.  This was just the first of four major wars fought between the Arabs and the Israelis. 

            Most significant of these wars in terms of the peace process was the 1967 war, commonly referred to as the Six-Day War.  In this war, Israel overwhelmingly defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and captured large expanses of territory including the entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank including Jerusalem from Jordan.  As a result of the war and the occupation of the captured territories, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 242 which demanded an immediate halt to hostilities, return of the occupied territories, but also the recognized right for Israel to exist within recognized and defined boundaries.[2]  This formula of land for peace has become the standard by which peace negotiations have been based since 1967.  In 1973, the Arab states tried to regain the lost territories by military action in what came to be known as the Yom Kippur War; however, after heavy fighting, they were again defeated.  As a result of this war, the Security Council issued Resolution 338 which reiterated the provisions of Resolutions 242 and called for peace negotiations between the parties to commence.[3]  The negotiations only happened when the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, got personally involved in the peace process. 

            President Carter brought the Egypt under Anwar Sadat and Israel under Menachem Begin together at Camp David in Maryland and after intense negotiations, they agreed to what became known as the Camp David Accords.  Eventually this agreement resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and dismantling of Israeli settlements on Egyptian territory that had been occupied as a result of the 1967 war.  Th formula of land for peace became the standard future peace negotiations. 

            While Egypt has been the leader of the Arab world in trying to establish peace with Israel, since its formation by the Arab League in 1964, the Palestinian people have been officially represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  Yasir Arafat became head of the PLO and thus the official spokesman for the Palestinian people in 1969.  Through the 1970s and 1980s, Arafat supported terrorist acts, including links to the organization that executed the attack against Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics and a running civil war to overthrow the monarchy of Jordan. [4] [5]  This legacy of terrorism has haunted Arafat throughout the peace process. 

Israeli-Palestinian Agreements

            In terms of the peace process, it was only with the Oslo agreement of 1993 that the workings of an independent Palestinian state came into being.  One part of the agreement was that the PLO had to recognize Israel and Israel’s right to exist.  The PLO, in turn, was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.  Arafat was given five years to organize a government.  Israel was given latitude to redeploy their military and, with a legitimate Palestinian government, no longer had to provide for the health and welfare of refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza.  Following the Oslo Accords, Arafat was elected as President of the Palestinian Authority in 1996 by an overwhelming majority.  One of Arafat’s key powers was control of security forces of the Palestinian Authority and thus the ability to help insure that Israel remained secure.  Unfortunately for the peace process, the Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995 by an Israeli citizen who did not agree with the peace process.  Rabin’s death showed just how fragile the peace process was; as shortly after his death, Benjamin Netanyahu of the hawkish Likud Party was elected as Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. 

            Arafat’s either refusal or inability to stop terrorist attacks had helped Netanyahu in his election.  Netanyahu’s Likud Party has always less inclined to deal with the Palestinians and Netanyahu made it a condition for peace that the Palestinians first needed to satisfy all agreements made with Israel prior to further progress being made in the peace process.  The ironic thing with this stance is that Israel still has yet to abide by their agreements regarding the Occupied Territories, especially those that require compliance with Resolutions 242 and 338.  Also, Israel has continued to establish settlements in the Occupied Territories which continues to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks to peace.  Netanyahu required of Arafat something that his government themselves were not doing, which was honoring prior agreements.  These demands put a halt to the peace process and demonstrate that Netanyahu was not truly seeking peace. 

            The peace process finally continued with the election of Ehud Barak from the Labor Party in 1999.   First, Barak met with Syria’s Hafez al-Assad but the talks broke down over the issue of where the border should be.  Israel was prepared to offer most of the Golan Heights back to Syria, but Syria demanded that the border include the eastern shore of Lake Tiberius (the Sea of Galilee).  Israel wanted a buffer of 10 meters from the shore because the lake provides the majority of Israel’s supply of fresh water.  The key point for Assad was the lake; while for Israel it was the water in the lake.  President Clinton recalled that Assad stated, “But it’s our lake too,” when he was told the Israeli proposal to retain a 10 meter buffer around the lake.[6]   The talks broke down over this issue and with the subsequent death of Assad, the process has not been resumed.

            Barak, with the help of President Clinton, met with Arafat at Camp David in 2000.  The talks centered on the issue of borders.  The Palestinians renewed their demands of a state headquartered in East Jerusalem, the ancient walled city that is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians.  The Israelis were willing to give half of the Old City but refused to budge on the issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount (Jewish) or Noble Sanctuary (Muslim).  As a final, last ditch effort to achieve peace before he left office, Clinton proposed splitting sovereignty over the holy places with the Muslims controlling the top of the foundations where their holy places were and the Jews would control the foundation itself, which was all that remained of their holy places.[7]  While this seemed to be a good solution, Arafat did not have the authority to negotiate for the entire Islamic community and so could not agree to this proposal and Barak, under intense political pressure from Sharon’s opposition, outright refused the deal. 

The Al-Aqsa Intifada

            The progress that had been made came to a crashing halt on September 28, 2000 when Ariel Sharon, a member of the Knesset and leader of the opposition Likud Party, decided he would tour the Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.  Sharon and Barak were well aware of the potential consequences of his action, but Barak was powerless to prevent Sharon from touring the Temple Mount as it is a right of all Israeli citizens.  In response to Sharon’s visit, a large uprising broke out that became known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada.  The Intifada helped to sweep Sharon into office and Barak out. 

After the Intifada had raged for two whole years, a breakthrough in the peace processwas achieved at the Arab League Summit in Beirut on March 28, 2002.  Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah proposed peace with Israel provided Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 borders.[8]  Unfortunately, this proposal was overshadowed that same day by a Hamas-sponsored suicide attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya that killed 30 Israeli civilians who were just sitting down for their Passover feast.  The Israelis blamed Arafat for not doing anything as Arafat controlled all security forces of the Palestinian Authority and did not do anything to even arrest those responsible for the bombings. 

            Colin Powell, the newly appointed Secretary of State under President George Bush, sent General Anthony Zinni as a special envoy to finally negotiate a cease-fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  When Zinni arrived, one of the strangest incidents of the conflict occurred with the Israeli capture of the ship Karine A on January 3, 2002.  On board were 50 tons of weapons that the Israelis claimed were intended for the Palestinian Authority; however, this was based on evidence that was tenuous at best.[9]  Regardless of whether the ship really was delivering weapons to the Palestinian Authority or to another group such as Hezbollah that was not associated with the Palestinian Authority, Arafat was blamed by Israel and the incident was used to show that Arafat was nothing more than a terrorist. 

Using the Karine A incident as justification, the Israeli army surrounded Arafat’s compound in Ramallah to further isolate him.  Israel started to assassinate Palestinian leaders.  This did nothing to help settle the Intifada.  This destroyed any hope of a cease-fire to stop the Intifada at this time.  While Israel talked about peace to the American peace delegation, their bombs were killing civilians who happened to be near Palestinian militants that were targeted for assassination.  While suicide bombers killing civilians is deplorable, it is just as, if not more, horrific that the Israelis kill even more civilians with their military weapons.

            Colin Powell, despite opposition from Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Dick Cheney, who believed that it was not profitable to speak to Arafat, went to the region to try to salvage peace through diplomacy.  Many in the media also openly questioned Powell’s attempt at diplomacy.[10]  When Powell pressed Arafat to use his influence to stop the suicide bombings, Arafat merely tried to say that some of those bombings were being done by the Israeli Mossad (intelligence agency) to frame Palestinians, but failed to offer any concrete evidence of this claim.  Powell did not believe this story.[11]

            At the same time as the negotiations with Colin Powell were happening, the Israeli military was heavily engaged in the West Bank refugee camp of Jenin.  When the soldiers were unsuccessful at reaching the center of the camp using standard tactics, the Israelis sent in armored bulldozers to level parts of the town that got in their way.  While an effective military tactic, this action brought condemnation from the international community and calls for a United Nations investigation into possible human rights violations.  The Israeli High Command was not about to let an international investigation happen. 

            The political pressure that was exerted on behalf of Israel in the United States helped to insure that the United States would again block UN action against Israel and to end all further negotiations with Arafat.  Evangelical Christians headed by Jerry Falwell, who support Israel’s occupation of the West Bank due to their interpretations of the Bible, as well as various groups that can be termed as “the Israel Lobby” met with President Bush and held rallies against meeting with Arafat.[12]  Bush went on to state that he believed that Ariel Sharon was a man of peace.  Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah commented that, “Even Ariel Sharon does not think Ariel Sharon is a man of peace.”[13]  In a meeting with Bush at his ranch in Texas, Prince Abdullah pressed Bush to use his influence to stop the blockade of Arafat’s compound in Ramallah by implying that Saudi Arabia would not cooperate with the U.S. plan to use the Kingdom as a staging area for the planned attack on Iraq.  Bush immediately contracted the Israeli government.  Israel saw an opportunity; they agreed to lift the siege on Arafat’s compound if the United States blocked UN action to investigate and possibly punish Israeli commanders and soldiers for violations of the Geneva Conventions in Jenin.[14]  After the UN investigation was blocked, Israel left their positions surrounding Arafat’s compound.

Continually the talking points of the spokespeople for the Israel Lobby centered on labeling Arafat a terrorist.  President Bush got the message.  In a speech on June 24, 2002, Bush became the first American president to speak openly about a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but added, “Peace requires a new and different political Palestinian leadership.  I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.”[15]    Arafat was compelled to relinquish most of his powers to Mahmoud Abbas, other than control over the security forces which he retained personal control over.[16]  Arafat seemed more interested in maintaining his own personal power than in anything else even if that meant that he was not acting in the best interest of his people. 

The Roadmap

The next plan put forward, sponsored by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- the Quartet – outlined steps that needed to be taken by both sides in order to promote peace and establish a Palestinian state.  In short, the Palestinians had to guarantee Israel’s security in exchange for concessions from Israel.  No side was supposed to act unilaterally.  The Palestinians wanted the disengagement be simultaneous; Israel wanted the Palestinians to act first in order to get concessions from them.[17] 

The Palestinians accepted the Roadmap without reservation, but Israel issued fourteen requirements and provisos before they accepted the plan.  Of those provisos, Israel demanded that the Palestinian Authority dismantle all militant groups and sub-groups as well as confiscate all illegal weapons, the waiver of any right of return to Israel for refugees, and no discussion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.[18]  The demand that the Palestinians dismantle all the militant groups and confiscate all weapons is completely unreasonable.  Not even the most oppressive regime could hope to confiscate every illegal weapon and stop all citizens from forming groups beyond the control of recognized authority.  The issue of the right of return has been a consistent sticking point in negotiations with Israel.  The settlement question has been addressed in every agreement Israel has signed.  Israel continues to expand their existing settlements in the occupied territories as well as found new ones.  Nobody involved in the peace process disputes Israel’s right to exist; what is in dispute is Israel’s right to expand. 

A major setback for the peace process occurred when Sharon’s government decided to unilaterally disengage from Gaza.  All settlements in Gaza were dismantled and all settlers were withdrawn.  While this was touted as a step in the right direction, in reality, Sharon used this withdrawal as a way to, “Strengthen control over areas of Greater Israel.  These will be an integral part of the state of Israel in any future agreement. ”[19]  By Greater Israel, Sharon was referring to settlements in the West Bank and making those settlements a permanent part of Israel which was against all previous agreements that have been signed as well as Resolutions 242 and 338. 

Israel also began construction of their so-called “anti-terrorism” wall.  This ten meter high concrete wall will eventually encompass the entire West Bank.    The wall will run over three times longer than the recognized border and run completely on Palestinian land that was taken during the 1967 war.[20]  The wall would serve as a de-facto border and allow the annexation of land on the Israeli side of the wall.  Ariel Sharon has quoted Walt Whitman by saying that, “Good fences make good neighbors.”[21]  One is reminded of the Berlin Wall; however, that wall was built entirely on East German territory and did not at any time cross the border but was in fact a few feet removed from where the actual border lay.  The building of the West Bank Wall is simply an act of theft; there is no other way to justify the incursions into Palestinian territory. 

The wall also has implications for the future viability of a Palestinian state.  The wall divides many villages from their farmland, schools, and contact with other Palestinian areas and completely disrupts commerce and emergency services.  This coupled with the extensive road network that connects the Israeli settlements that dissect the Palestinian territory to the point that there is very little continuous stretches of land that will allow any large-scale economic development.  As a further complication to the viability of a Palestinian state, the separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank as well as the northern West Bank from the southern parts by Israeli territory that will be impassible for Palestinians will destroy all hope of uniting the Palestinian people.

Conclusion

While the two-state solution seems to be the way that the peace process is heading and the currently preferred method, both sides would benefit more from working together and joining in a single state.  A secular state that guarantees the rights of religious worship and provides equal protection under the law without respect to race or religion ultimately would be the best plan.  The majorities of both peoples wish for peace and want to get along with each other.  The two people have so many traits in common that is it absurd that both cannot get along and share the land they both inhabit.  This truly is the only real way forward instead of a divided land where everyone squabbles with everyone else.  Economic ties are truly what guarantee peace and without open borders without checkpoints that do nothing but hinder commerce, stabilizing economic ties will be impossible to establish.  The single-state solution is opposed by those who want to live in a theocracy under either Jewish or Islamic law. 

Ultimately, both sides of the peace process need to legitimately deal in good faith with the other to make the peace process succeed.  The United States, as the only real superpower,  is the only power that is capable of being the broker that ensures that this happens.  Only the United States has the influence, prestige, money and power to make both sides honor their commitments.  Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority depend on American money, both in the form of direct government aid and in private donations from U.S. citizens, to survive.  Without an American-brokered deal, peace will remain elusive.  The Palestinian Authority needs to insure the security of Israel and Israel needs to allow for a viable Palestinian state. 

While it is encouraging that all involved, including Saudi Arabia and Syria recently met at Annapolis, Maryland, more progress needs to be made.  Diplomacy is always preferable to bloodshed, but is also always more difficult.  The road ahead will be difficult, but peace can be achieved.

        

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion