Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
In March 2002, then-Crown Prince, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed the “Arab Peace Initiative” in the Arab League Beirut Summit. According to Arab leaders this initiative consisted of a comprehensive proposal to end the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab League members unanimously endorsed the peace initiative on March 27.
According to the Arab Peace Initiative Israel will:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;
(b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
(c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region;
(b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace
To most unsuspecting Westerners, the Arab Peace Initiative may seem like a clear sign that Arab states are truly dedicated to peace. With such an attractive and generous offer – an end to the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, and peace with all Arab states – what does Israel have to lose?
Surely, withdrawing from all occupied territories is not such a big problem for Israel if it gets peace with all Arab countries in return; Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula – an area 3 times the size of Israel – in return for peace with Egypt.
Accepting an independent Palestinian state is also not a big issue of concern; Israeli PMs over the past two decades have agreed that a Palestinian state will be a reality, and negotiated with Palestinian leaders to that end.
But what about the Palestinian refugee issue? How can Israel possibly reject a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees?
Well, there’s only one little problem here – what is hidden behind the innocent sounding words of the Arab proposal is actually something quite ominous to Israel. While part (b) of the released proposal states:
Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
When we look at the full wording of the Arab Peace Initiative, we find the following:
“To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194,” and “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”
What exactly does “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation” mean?
The Arab states used more explicit language on this point in a Final Statement that accompanied their initiative. They rejected any solution that involves “resettling of the Palestinians outside of their homes.”
This does not just mean that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries. It also means that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in the future Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza).
The only solution Arab states would be willing to accept – and the only solution they view as “just” – to the Palestinian refugee problem is the resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
So while the Arab Initiative itself says that the solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees should be “agreed upon” – presumably in negotiations between Israel and Arab states, the Arab Final Statement leaves no room for negotiations. What this really means is that Israel should agree to the Arab proposal to resettle Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Can Israel agree to such proposal?
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Resettling millions of refugees in Israel – a country of 7.7 million inhabitants (including 1.25 million Israeli Arabs) – would inevitably bring the destruction of the Jewish State.
In other words, through the Arab “Peace” Initiative, Arab states declare that they are willing to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and sign a peace agreement with Israel… once Israel ceases to exist.
Thus, according to the Arab perspective the only way to “peacefully” resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is through the destruction of the Jewish State.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian Refugees
Certainly, Israel would never agree to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees. But is the Arab demand for the “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel legitimate? Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
For Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace? That will be the topic of the next post in the series The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
According to the Arab Peace Initiative Israel will:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;
(b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
(c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region;
(b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace
To most unsuspecting Westerners, the Arab Peace Initiative may seem like a clear sign that Arab states are truly dedicated to peace. With such an attractive and generous offer – an end to the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, and peace with all Arab states – what does Israel have to lose?
Surely, withdrawing from all occupied territories is not such a big problem for Israel if it gets peace with all Arab countries in return; Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula – an area 3 times the size of Israel – in return for peace with Egypt.
Accepting an independent Palestinian state is also not a big issue of concern; Israeli PMs over the past two decades have agreed that a Palestinian state will be a reality, and negotiated with Palestinian leaders to that end.
But what about the Palestinian refugee issue? How can Israel possibly reject a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees?
Well, there’s only one little problem here – what is hidden behind the innocent sounding words of the Arab proposal is actually something quite ominous to Israel. While part (b) of the released proposal states:
Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
When we look at the full wording of the Arab Peace Initiative, we find the following:
“To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194,” and “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”
What exactly does “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation” mean?
The Arab states used more explicit language on this point in a Final Statement that accompanied their initiative. They rejected any solution that involves “resettling of the Palestinians outside of their homes.”
This does not just mean that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries. It also means that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in the future Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza).
The only solution Arab states would be willing to accept – and the only solution they view as “just” – to the Palestinian refugee problem is the resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
So while the Arab Initiative itself says that the solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees should be “agreed upon” – presumably in negotiations between Israel and Arab states, the Arab Final Statement leaves no room for negotiations. What this really means is that Israel should agree to the Arab proposal to resettle Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Can Israel agree to such proposal?
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Resettling millions of refugees in Israel – a country of 7.7 million inhabitants (including 1.25 million Israeli Arabs) – would inevitably bring the destruction of the Jewish State.
In other words, through the Arab “Peace” Initiative, Arab states declare that they are willing to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and sign a peace agreement with Israel… once Israel ceases to exist.
Thus, according to the Arab perspective the only way to “peacefully” resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is through the destruction of the Jewish State.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian Refugees
Certainly, Israel would never agree to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees. But is the Arab demand for the “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel legitimate? Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
For Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace? That will be the topic of the next post in the series The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You might also like:
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path to War
The previous post in the series demonstrated how instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
It showed how the demand for the “Right of Return” of Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and unjustly shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. It also showed how the Arab demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
And it concluded that according to Arab leaders, the only “just resolution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would bring “peace” to the region would be the destruction of the Jewish State. Thus, for Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Unfortunately, reality proves otherwise.
Since 1967, the basis for Arab-Israeli negotiations has been UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the implementation of the “land for peace” formula – calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors.
For 20 years, the Palestinian leadership has managed to delude much of the Western world into thinking that its objective is to establish a Palestinian state and bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In reality, the objective of the Palestinians has been the destruction of the Jewish State; establishing a Palestinian state is merely a means to continue the conflict – not end it!
What evidence is there that this is indeed the case? “Moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself demonstrated that this is the case.
In his May 2011 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Palestinian President Abbas tried to justify his decision to bypass negotiations with Israel, and ask for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders from the United Nations this coming September.
Instead of negotiating with Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace, Abbas wants to coerce Israel to withdraw from territories in exchange for the continuation of conflict.
One of the steps that needs to be taken to achieve peace is reconciliation of grievances. But instead of trying to reconcile grievances with Israel, Abbas unjustly shifts the entire responsibility for the conflict to Israel. He writes:
“It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued… …Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
Here President Abbas rewrites history in an attempt to justify the fraudulent Arab demand for a “Right of Return.”
Unlike Abbas’ claims a Palestinian state was not a “promise unfulfilled” by the international community – it was a plan rejected by Palestinian and Arab leaders.
And unlike what Abbas implies, the ensuing conflict was not instigated by “Zionist forces” – it was the direct result of Arab attacks on Jewish communities. The violence that broke out throughout Palestine became more and more prevalent until it escalated into a civil war. The Zionist counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass departure of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.
Hours after Israel declared independence the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents, invaded Israel. The Arab League Secretary, Azzam Pasha, declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” In response, the Israeli army launched a series of offensives into areas allocated to the proposed Arab state.
During the 1948 war, between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. On the other hand, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation.
The Palestinian leader tries to portray the Arab side as victims of Zionist aggression. But in reality, Palestinian leaders and Arab states bear much of the responsibility for the 1948 war, and for the predicament of the Palestinian people.
Abbas’ unwillingness to acknowledge any Arab responsibility for the conflict indicates that he’s not interested in reconciling grievances with Israel, or ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abbas writes:
“Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel.”
What are the core issues of the conflict Palestinian are concerned about? The issues to be negotiated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are:
- Borders of future Palestinian state
- Israeli settlements in the West Bank
- Status of Jerusalem
- “Right of return” of Palestinian refugees
If a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is admitted to the UN by bypassing negotiations the first three issues become irrelevant, since they are no longer subject for negotiations. Thus, the only issue for “negotiation” would be the “Right of return” (which is synonymous with the “right” to destroy the Jewish State). Abbas continues:
“Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.”
In other words, according to “moderate” President Abbas, there can only be “a future of hope and dignity” for the Palestinian people if the Jewish State is destroyed.
Of course, there is one flaw in the Palestinian scheme to evade peace negotiations; the UN General Assembly can vote to admit a state as a full member only if it receives a recommendation to do so from the UN Security Council. The United States is expected to veto such recommendation in the UN Security Council since it undermines the negotiation process. In that case, a vote in the UN General Assembly would be meaningless.
Meaningless, but not entirely futile; the US veto would likely stir anti-American hostility in the Arab street, while the automatic majority Palestinians receive in the UN General Assembly will likely provoke Arab violence throughout the Palestinian territories and in Israel.
Is the Middle East on a Path to War?
But is there any way to interpret Abbas’ position that would give hope for the peace process? Or is the Middle East on a sure path to war?
In August 2009, the Fatah Conference – President Mahmoud Abbas’ faction – convened for the first time in 20 years. The congress adopted a resolution that all of Jerusalem be returned to the Palestinians and asserted the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes left before the 1948 war over Israel’s independence. In addition, a Fatah policy statement issued during the conference reserved the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” if future peace negotiations were not successful.”
In other words, Fatah reserves the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” (ie. terrorism) if negotiations with Israel are “not successful.” Yet, according to Fatah, one of the goals of these negotiations is the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel (ie. the destruction of the Jewish state). Since such negotiations are guaranteed to be “not successful” the sure result would be another outbreak of war.
Why then did the Palestinian leaders decide to abandon peace negotiations with Israel and go to the United Nations? Perhaps because they realized that to achieve an independent Palestinian state they would have to compromise on their goal to destroy the Jewish state.
Palestinians Prefer Destruction of Israel over Peace and End of Occupation
In a 2010 poll of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were asked the following questions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations:
Do you think that the Palestinians must renounce their right of home return, which Israel will never accept, in exchange for having an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace deal with Israel?
1. Yes, the Palestinians must do that: 14.0%
2. No, they shouldn’t do that even if the price would be the non-conclusion of a peace deal with Israel: 81.7%
3. I have no opinion: 4.3%
If the Palestinian leadership would waive the right of home return in exchange for a financial compensation, would you accept or refuse that?
1. I would accept that: 13.1%
2. I would refuse that: 81.8%
3. Don’t know: 5.1%
For years we’ve been told that the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Israeli occupation. We’ve been told that the reason for Palestinian violence and terrorism is that Palestinians are desperate, that they have nothing to lose.
Now it turns out that the vast majority of Palestinians – over 80 percent – prefer not to end the occupation, not to achieve national independence, and not to have peace, if the price they have to pay is the continued existence of the Jewish state.
By going to the United Nations Palestinian leaders are trying to avoid making that choice. They want to have a Palestinian state and continue the conflict with Israel, until the destruction of the Jewish state.
On the other hand, what would happen if Palestinian leaders return to negotiations? If they reach a peace deal with Israel that gives Palestinians almost the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, removes most Israeli settlements (except for the large settlement blocks that take about 1.5% of the West Bank), and generously compensates Palestinian refugees?
First, that already happened – in the 2000 Camp David Summit! The result was that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the Israeli offer and did not propose any counter-offer. Two months later the Second Intifada broke out and claimed the lives of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.
Second, any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel must be approved by a Palestinian referendum. The vast majority of Palestinians (over 80%) will reject any deal that does not include the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel – something Israel will never agree to.
Thus, for both Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Both Palestinian leaders and the vast majority of the Palestinian public prefer to continue the conflict and to destroy the Jewish state, over achieving an end to the occupation, national independence, and peace.
Given the reality of Arab and Palestinian attitude toward Israel, the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war.
How then can the next outbreak of violence be prevented? Only if Arab and Palestinian leaders genuinely decide to end their hostility toward Israel, recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, and address the legitimate grievances of both sides in the conflict.
Until then, it seems that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s famous quote from 1957 is as true now as it was then:
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
The next post in the series will explain why there is such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and if it is justified.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
It showed how the demand for the “Right of Return” of Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and unjustly shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. It also showed how the Arab demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
And it concluded that according to Arab leaders, the only “just resolution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would bring “peace” to the region would be the destruction of the Jewish State. Thus, for Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Unfortunately, reality proves otherwise.
Since 1967, the basis for Arab-Israeli negotiations has been UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the implementation of the “land for peace” formula – calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors.
For 20 years, the Palestinian leadership has managed to delude much of the Western world into thinking that its objective is to establish a Palestinian state and bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In reality, the objective of the Palestinians has been the destruction of the Jewish State; establishing a Palestinian state is merely a means to continue the conflict – not end it!
What evidence is there that this is indeed the case? “Moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself demonstrated that this is the case.
In his May 2011 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Palestinian President Abbas tried to justify his decision to bypass negotiations with Israel, and ask for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders from the United Nations this coming September.
Instead of negotiating with Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace, Abbas wants to coerce Israel to withdraw from territories in exchange for the continuation of conflict.
One of the steps that needs to be taken to achieve peace is reconciliation of grievances. But instead of trying to reconcile grievances with Israel, Abbas unjustly shifts the entire responsibility for the conflict to Israel. He writes:
“It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued… …Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
Here President Abbas rewrites history in an attempt to justify the fraudulent Arab demand for a “Right of Return.”
Unlike Abbas’ claims a Palestinian state was not a “promise unfulfilled” by the international community – it was a plan rejected by Palestinian and Arab leaders.
And unlike what Abbas implies, the ensuing conflict was not instigated by “Zionist forces” – it was the direct result of Arab attacks on Jewish communities. The violence that broke out throughout Palestine became more and more prevalent until it escalated into a civil war. The Zionist counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass departure of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.
Hours after Israel declared independence the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents, invaded Israel. The Arab League Secretary, Azzam Pasha, declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” In response, the Israeli army launched a series of offensives into areas allocated to the proposed Arab state.
During the 1948 war, between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. On the other hand, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation.
The Palestinian leader tries to portray the Arab side as victims of Zionist aggression. But in reality, Palestinian leaders and Arab states bear much of the responsibility for the 1948 war, and for the predicament of the Palestinian people.
Abbas’ unwillingness to acknowledge any Arab responsibility for the conflict indicates that he’s not interested in reconciling grievances with Israel, or ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abbas writes:
“Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel.”
What are the core issues of the conflict Palestinian are concerned about? The issues to be negotiated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are:
- Borders of future Palestinian state
- Israeli settlements in the West Bank
- Status of Jerusalem
- “Right of return” of Palestinian refugees
If a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is admitted to the UN by bypassing negotiations the first three issues become irrelevant, since they are no longer subject for negotiations. Thus, the only issue for “negotiation” would be the “Right of return” (which is synonymous with the “right” to destroy the Jewish State). Abbas continues:
“Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.”
In other words, according to “moderate” President Abbas, there can only be “a future of hope and dignity” for the Palestinian people if the Jewish State is destroyed.
Of course, there is one flaw in the Palestinian scheme to evade peace negotiations; the UN General Assembly can vote to admit a state as a full member only if it receives a recommendation to do so from the UN Security Council. The United States is expected to veto such recommendation in the UN Security Council since it undermines the negotiation process. In that case, a vote in the UN General Assembly would be meaningless.
Meaningless, but not entirely futile; the US veto would likely stir anti-American hostility in the Arab street, while the automatic majority Palestinians receive in the UN General Assembly will likely provoke Arab violence throughout the Palestinian territories and in Israel.
Is the Middle East on a Path to War?
But is there any way to interpret Abbas’ position that would give hope for the peace process? Or is the Middle East on a sure path to war?
In August 2009, the Fatah Conference – President Mahmoud Abbas’ faction – convened for the first time in 20 years. The congress adopted a resolution that all of Jerusalem be returned to the Palestinians and asserted the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes left before the 1948 war over Israel’s independence. In addition, a Fatah policy statement issued during the conference reserved the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” if future peace negotiations were not successful.”
In other words, Fatah reserves the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” (ie. terrorism) if negotiations with Israel are “not successful.” Yet, according to Fatah, one of the goals of these negotiations is the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel (ie. the destruction of the Jewish state). Since such negotiations are guaranteed to be “not successful” the sure result would be another outbreak of war.
Why then did the Palestinian leaders decide to abandon peace negotiations with Israel and go to the United Nations? Perhaps because they realized that to achieve an independent Palestinian state they would have to compromise on their goal to destroy the Jewish state.
Palestinians Prefer Destruction of Israel over Peace and End of Occupation
In a 2010 poll of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were asked the following questions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations:
Do you think that the Palestinians must renounce their right of home return, which Israel will never accept, in exchange for having an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace deal with Israel?
1. Yes, the Palestinians must do that: 14.0%
2. No, they shouldn’t do that even if the price would be the non-conclusion of a peace deal with Israel: 81.7%
3. I have no opinion: 4.3%
If the Palestinian leadership would waive the right of home return in exchange for a financial compensation, would you accept or refuse that?
1. I would accept that: 13.1%
2. I would refuse that: 81.8%
3. Don’t know: 5.1%
For years we’ve been told that the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Israeli occupation. We’ve been told that the reason for Palestinian violence and terrorism is that Palestinians are desperate, that they have nothing to lose.
Now it turns out that the vast majority of Palestinians – over 80 percent – prefer not to end the occupation, not to achieve national independence, and not to have peace, if the price they have to pay is the continued existence of the Jewish state.
By going to the United Nations Palestinian leaders are trying to avoid making that choice. They want to have a Palestinian state and continue the conflict with Israel, until the destruction of the Jewish state.
On the other hand, what would happen if Palestinian leaders return to negotiations? If they reach a peace deal with Israel that gives Palestinians almost the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, removes most Israeli settlements (except for the large settlement blocks that take about 1.5% of the West Bank), and generously compensates Palestinian refugees?
First, that already happened – in the 2000 Camp David Summit! The result was that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the Israeli offer and did not propose any counter-offer. Two months later the Second Intifada broke out and claimed the lives of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.
Second, any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel must be approved by a Palestinian referendum. The vast majority of Palestinians (over 80%) will reject any deal that does not include the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel – something Israel will never agree to.
Thus, for both Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Both Palestinian leaders and the vast majority of the Palestinian public prefer to continue the conflict and to destroy the Jewish state, over achieving an end to the occupation, national independence, and peace.
Given the reality of Arab and Palestinian attitude toward Israel, the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war.
How then can the next outbreak of violence be prevented? Only if Arab and Palestinian leaders genuinely decide to end their hostility toward Israel, recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, and address the legitimate grievances of both sides in the conflict.
Until then, it seems that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s famous quote from 1957 is as true now as it was then:
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
The next post in the series will explain why there is such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and if it is justified.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
A 2010 poll of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, taken among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, shows that given the choice between:
a) Ending the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state, signing a peace treaty with Israel, and declaring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and
b) Continuing the struggle until the destruction of the Jewish state (at the expense of not establishing a Palestinian state)
The vast majority of Palestinians (81.7%) chose to continue the struggle until the destruction of the Jewish state. Only 14% of Palestinian chose to end the conflict and establish a state.
Given the fact that any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel would have to pass a Palestinian referendum, it is clear that for Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
While the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war, maybe it is time to stop and ask: why is there such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and is this hatred justified? What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The Arab side claims that the main grievances they have with Israel are the following:
- Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians
- the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel
- the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel
Yet, the Arab side claims that there is an issue that is more deeply at the core of the conflict. Namely, the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
This post will demonstrate that Arab hatred toward the Jewish state has nothing to do with Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians.
It has nothing to do with the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
It has nothing to do with the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a clash of ideologies!
Rhetoric vs. Reality
While the issues raised by the Arab side may be legitimate in themselves, it is far from evident that the Arab side does not merely use these issues as tactical ploys; cynically exploiting humanitarian and political grievances to advance a political agenda – the destruction of the Jewish state – at the expense of innocent people on both sides of the conflict.
Exploiting legitimate grievances to advance national interests is not uncommon throughout history. The most glaring example of this is the “concern” of the German Nazi Party over the plight of Germans in the Sudetenland:
In August 1938, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, sent Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia to see if he could obtain a settlement between the Czechoslovak government and the Germans in the Sudetenland. His mission failed because the Sudeten German Party refused all conciliating proposals (on Hitler’s command). Runciman reported the following to the British government regarding Czech policy towards the German minority in the preceding decades:
“Czech officials and Czech police, speaking little or no German, were appointed in large numbers to purely German districts; Czech agricultural colonists were encouraged to settle on land confiscated under the Land Reform in the middle of German populations; for the children of these Czech invaders Czech schools were built on a large scale; there is a very general belief that Czech firms were favoured as against German firms in the allocation of State contracts and that the State provided work and relief for Czechs more readily than for Germans. I believe these complaints to be in the main justified. Even as late as the time of my Mission, I could find no readiness on the part of the Czechoslovak Government to remedy them on anything like an adequate scale … the feeling among the Sudeten Germans until about three or four years ago was one of hopelessness. But the rise of Nazi Germany gave them new hope. I regard their turning for help towards their kinsmen and their eventual desire to join the Reich as a natural development in the circumstances.” (Wikipedia)
On September 21, Czechoslovakia capitulated to British and French demands to cede the Sudetenland to Germany. The next day, however, Hitler added new demands, insisting that the claims of ethnic Germans in Poland and Hungary also be satisfied. On September 30, 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed. On the same day, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain delivered his famous “peace for our time” speech to delighted crowds in London.
In March 1939, the German army conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia, and on September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and World War II began.
Certainly, there is no equivalence between the actions of Arab leaders and Nazi Germany. The example above was used because it clearly illustrates the geopolitical dynamics of conflict: peace can only be achieved if there is a sincere desire on both sides to resolve differences. If, however, a side in a conflict is exploiting grievances for political ends, any signed agreement would be nothing but a temporary ceasefire – a strategic victory for the aggressing side that puts the region on the path to more violence and war.
Is the Arab side genuinely concerned about the issues it presents? Or is it merely manufacturing outrage among the public by exploiting these legitimate grievances to promote its political agenda?
Let us consider the issues raised by the Arab side one by one:
Are Arabs genuinely concerned over alleged Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians?
Atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, some 60,000 Arabs, including several thousand Palestinians, lost their lives in wars with Israel – wars which Arab states themselves instigated.
The killing of thousands of Arabs in wars with Israel would certainly create animosity toward Israel. However, that is not the issue we are dealing with here.
The issue we are dealing with is the following: with the exception of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and former Soviet republics with Muslim majority – the vast majority of Arab and Muslim countries (which number 22 and 57 respectively) refuse to recognize, and are openly hostile to, the State of Israel. If the reason for this hostility is Israel’s killing of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians in wars, then we should expect these states to be hostile to other countries that killed thousands of Arabs. On the other hand, if Arabs apply a double-standard toward Israel, then we must conclude that Arabs do not genuinely care about Israel’s treatment of Arabs and Palestinians. In that case, the hostility of Arab masses toward Israel is the result of manufactured outrage generated by Arab political and social elites, and Arab leaders are exploiting the situation to promote their political agenda: the destruction of the Jewish state.
Do Arab states apply a double-standard in their approach toward Israel when there are Arab casualties? Let’s compare the Arab response to the Gaza War in 2009 to it’s response to the Syrian protests of 2011:
Gaza War
Between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009, Israel conducted Operation Cast Lead against the Hamas terror organization in Gaza, as a response to Hamas’ firing of hundreds of rockets on Israeli cities. During the conflict some 1400 Palestinians were killed – about half of which were civilians, and the rest were Hamas militants.
On January 1, 2009 – five days into the fighting, by which time about 320 Palestinians were killed (mostly Hamas militants) – Libya has presented a draft resolution from the Arab League (representing 22 Arab countries) to a UN Security Council emergency meeting. The resolution “strongly condemn[ed] all military attacks and the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israel…” and called for an immediate ceasefire.
Syrian Protests
Since March 15, 2011, pro-democratic demonstrations took place in major cities across Syria. The Syrian regime responded by brutally suppressing the demonstrations, and firing life ammunition into crowds of protestors. By the end of May 2011 – some two months after the bloodshed started – over a 1000 Syrians have been killed by the Syrian army. Around that time Britain, Portugal, Germany and France have circulated a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning the Syrian government for the brutal crackdown.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – representing 57 Muslim-majority countries, including 22 Arab countries – declared the following in response to the UN draft: “There are no grounds to consider this issue in the UN Security Council… …We will not even read the text [of the draft resolution].”
In other words, when Israel is concerned the killing of 320 Arabs (mostly militants) warrants an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Otherwise, the indiscriminant killing of over a 1000 Arabs (almost all civilians) does not even warrant looking at the draft resolution after two months of violence. This is a clear case of an Arab double-standard toward Israel, which indicates that Arab states are exploiting the situation for political gain.
But perhaps we need to get a broader perspective on Israel’s killing of Arabs and Palestinians. How does Israel’s killing of some 60,000 Arabs in wars since 1947 compare with the death toll of Arabs and Muslims in other conflicts?
Arab and Muslim Death Toll
The following map shows the death toll from internal conflicts in the Islamic World since the end of WWII to the present.
The map specifically excludes the death toll in conflicts that involved foreign non-Arab or non-Muslim forces (for example the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, or the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the 2000s). Which means that the death toll on the map is solely the result of conflicts, wars, and genocide campaigns within or among Arab or Muslim majority countries.
It is evident that far more Arabs and Muslims were killed by other Arab or Muslim countries than by Israel – in fact, about 100 times more!
Yet, no other country’s actions are delegitimized by Arab countries like Israel’s. No other country’s right to exist is challenged and threatened by Arab countries like Israel’s. No other country’s actions are called “blood-thirsty“, “genocidal“, “terrorist“, or “Nazi” by Arab countries like Israel’s actions are.
This means that the Arab public’s outrage over Israel’s treatment of Arabs and Palestinians is not an objective response to the situation on the ground. Rather, this outrage is manufactured by the Arab media, and Arab political and social elites.
All these point to the conclusion that Arab leaders are not interested in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather, they are exploiting the situation to promote their political agenda: the destruction of the Jewish state.
Let’s consider the next issue:
Occupation and Brutal Treatment of Palestinians
Is Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination genuine? Are Arabs truly concerned over Israel’s alleged brutal treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories?
While Arab states show vehement and unanimous support for the Palestinian struggle against occupation, including armed “resistance” (which manifests itself in terror attacks and mass murder of Israeli civilians), this support only began to manifest itself when Israel became the occupying power in 1967.
Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Yet, during that time period no Arab state supported Palestinian self-determination, and no Arab state supported Palestinian statehood. What is more interesting though, is that Palestinians themselves did not demand self-determination or statehood when they were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Instead, the Palestinian National Liberation Movement – Fatah, founded in 1959 – called for “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”
In fact, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was not Israel’s initiative – it came as a direct result of the attempts by Arab states to annihilate Israel. On May 30, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced:
“The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel … to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations.”
In the 1967 War, Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Following the war the Arab League met in Khartoum, in September 1967, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. It reached a consensus that there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel. In addition, it urged the continued state of belligerency with Israel.
Does this mean that Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination is insincere? Is this another instance where Arab leaders are exploiting the suffering of the Palestinian people as a weapon in the conflict against Israel? Not necessarily. It is possible that Arab support for the Palestinian opposition to Israeli occupation stems from the situation on the ground. Perhaps life under Israeli occupation is more difficult than it was under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation? It is also possible that Arab states decided to change their policy toward the self-determination of stateless people. Let’s consider these possibilities:
Brutal Treatment of Palestinians
Arab leaders constantly accuse Israel of “bulldozing homes, reservoirs, wells and water pipes,” of “destroying crops and orchards” and of the “deliberate starvation and holding 3.2 million people under lock and key.” The Gaza Strip, under Israeli siege, is often referred to by Arab leaders as a “massive jail” or a “concentration camp.”
But do these accusations reflect the reality on the ground? Are Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip truly experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe because of Israel? All Human Development evidence seems to point to the contrary:
Today life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is 73.92 years, while infant mortality is at 17.12 deaths per 1,000 live births. In the West Bank life expectancy is 75.01 years. Infant mortality is at 14.92 deaths per 1,000 live births.
The average life expectancy for Arab states is 69.1, while the world average is 69.3. Average infant mortality for Arab states is 38, while for the world it is 41.61. In other words, living standards for Palestinians under Israeli occupation are higher than the living standards for most Arabs in the Arab world! At the same time about 97% of Palestinians live under the direct rule of the Palestinian Authority – not Israeli rule.
But is life under Israeli occupation more difficult than it was under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation?
Again, the evidence points to the contrary:
During 20 years of Arab occupation Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 42 to 44. During the next 20 years of Israeli occupation Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 44 to 63.
During 20 years of Arab occupation Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 45 to 46. During the next 20 years of Israeli occupation Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 46 to 67.
Now let’s consider the other possibility; is it possible that Arab states simply decided to change their policy toward stateless people?
Support for Self-Determination of Stateless People
Palestinians are not the only stateless people in the Middle East. In fact, the Middle East is home to the largest stateless people in the world, which number some 30 million people – the Kurdish people. The indigenous homeland of the Kurdish people – Kurdistan – is divided against their will between four sovereign states – Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey – none of which recognizes the lawful rights of Kurds for self-determination.
The Kurdish people experienced much devastation in their struggle for self-determination. During WWI the Turk government deported some 700,000 Kurds from their ancestral homeland in an attempt to eliminate Kurdish identity. Some 350,000 of these Kurds perished in death marches. In 1937–1938, approximately 50,000–70,000 Kurds were killed in the suppression of the Dersim Rebellion. In the 1980s an estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped from the map. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and more than 375,000 were displaced.
During the Iran-Iraq war, between March 1987 and April 1989, the Iraqi army carried out a genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, which included the use of chemical weapons. Some 2,000 villages were completely destroyed, at least 120,000 Kurds were killed, and more than a million became refugees.
The unimaginable suffering endured by the Kurdish people should inspire sympathy and admiration from every person who values freedom and human dignity. Yet, the Arab public shows no support for Kurdish self-determination, and no Arab state supports Kurdish self-determination or statehood.
How can this absurd situation be explained? Arab leaders did not call for Palestinian statehood when Palestinians were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Yet, as Palestinian standard of living significantly improved under Israeli occupation, suddenly Arab leaders are concerned with the plight of Palestinians?
How can Arab leaders decry Israel’s alleged brutal treatment of the Palestinian people under occupation, and at the same time be completely silent about the mass murder and displacement of Kurds in Turkey and the genocide of Kurds in Iraq?
Yet again, Arab leaders are exposed for their hypocrisy. Certainly, the Palestinian people have a legitimate right for self-determination and statehood. Life under Israeli occupation is difficult and replete with injustice. However, Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination has nothing to do with the plight of Palestinians. Instead of working to bring peace and stability to the region, Arab leaders are exploiting the suffering of the Palestinian people to manufacture outrage, and use it as a weapon in their war against Israel.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees
The question of a Palestinian “Right of Return” into Israel has already been discussed in Part I of the series: The Arab-Israeli Conflict : Why Peace is Impossible. However, it may be worth repeating.
Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Finally, let us consider what the Arab side claims to be at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict: the claim that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
Establishment of the Jewish homeland
On January 3, 1919, Emir Faisal Ibn al-Hussein – the son of the “King of all Arabs,” Hussein bin Ali – and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement as part of the Paris Peace Conference following World War I.
The agreement called for an Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.
Article IV of the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement stated that:
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
(1918. Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann; left, also wearing Arab outfit as a sign of friendship)
In a March 3, 1919, letter to the president of the Zionist Organization of America Emir Faisal wrote:
“We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
The Arabs… look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home… I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world.”
On March 23, 1918, Hussein bin Ali himself wrote in the daily newspaper of Mecca, Al Qibla, that Palestine was:
“a sacred and beloved homeland of its original sons [the Jews]; the return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren.”
He also called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare.
What went wrong?
As Emir Faisal stated, Arab leaders were fully acquainted with Zionist aspirations for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and viewed them as “moderate and proper.” They openly supported large scale immigration of Jews to Palestine, and encouraged Palestine’s Arab population to welcome the Jews.
What then brought such a sharp reversal in the Arab position toward Zionism and the Jewish homeland? To understand what caused this change we must take a brief historic overview of the Middle East:
Since the Arab-Muslim conquest in the 7th century AD, the Middle East has been under the rule of successive Islamic empires (these included, among others, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, and the Ottomans). And while Europe languished in the Dark Ages, the Muslim world thrived as the center of trade, science, and culture, and as a dominant force in the world.
However, all that began to change during the time of the latest Islamic empire – the Ottoman Empire. While Muslim science and technology had been highly regarded in medieval times, by this period the influence on learning became conservative and regressive, and innovation was largely suppressed. As Europe was on the rise following the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, the Ottoman Empire was in a steady state of decline.
Arab Nationalism and Islamic Modernism
Toward the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century the Ottomans were struggling to hold the empire together. Internal conditions were rapidly deteriorating, and in many parts of the Middle East the Ottomans became rulers in name only.
At the same time, a sense of Arab nationalism was developing in Arab intellectual circles throughout the Middle East. Arab nationalism was strongly influenced by European thought – a result of Arab admiration for the technological successes of Western Europe, and the heavy influx of Christian missionaries and educators from Western countries into the Middle East.
In the view of Arab patriots at the time, European modernism itself was of Islamic origin. The Arabs, on the other hand, had deviated from true Islam and thus suffered decline. Arab nationalists believed that “an Islamic governments should revive true Islam that would… …pave way for the establishment of constitutional representative government and freedom which was manifested in the West at the time.”
Muhammad Abduh, the founder of Islamic Modernism, has said: “I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.” He believed in and promoted a form of Islam that “would liberate men from enslavement, provide equal rights for all human beings, abolish the religious scholar’s monopoly on exegesis and abolish racial discrimination and religious compulsion” – the exact opposite of Islamism, which is the most powerful ideological force across the Muslim world today.
(for more on Islamic Modernism, see Mustafa Akyol’s excellent TED talk, “Faith versus tradition in Islam”)
World War I
What finally brought the demise and dissolution of the empire was the Ottomans’ fatal decision to join the Central Powers in World War I.
While the Ottomans were fighting alongside the Central Powers, the British were already preparing for the post-war era, and deciding the fate of the lands that were under Ottoman control in the Middle East. At the time there were two entities that contended for territory in the Middle East – the Sharif of Mecca, who sought to establish an Arab state over the entire Middle East, and the Zionist movement which sought to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The British made territorial promises both to the Zionist movement and to the Sharif of Mecca in exchange for their support in the war effort.
The Sharif of Mecca
Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, claimed to have direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad, and acted as the traditional guardian of Islam’s most holy sites of Mecca and Medina. The Sharif agreed to help the British by leading an Arab revolt against the Ottomans. In return he demanded to become the ruler of an Arab state spanning the entire Middle East. The British agreed to grant to the Sharif territories from Egypt to Persia, with the exception of “imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast” (which, according to the British, includes Palestine). In June 1916 Hussein launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans, and in October he declared himself “King of all Arabs.”
Arab Authoritarianism
By the end of 1918, the Ottoman Empire was defeated, and in 1919, the Paris Peace Conference convened.
In the conference the Allied Powers set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers. The League of Nations was established. And diplomats from over 29 countries came up with a series of treaties that reshaped the map of Europe and the world.
Also in the conference, Emir Faisal – representing Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca – and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. The agreement called for an Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.
However, Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement survived only a few months.
Although the Sharif of Mecca was promised a state spanning from Egypt to Persia (with the exception of some territories), the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France divided the Middle East between the two imperial powers. Arabs leaders felt betrayed. They expected to gain independence immediately, but instead the Allied Powers carved up the Middle East, and set up provisional British and French mandates of administration over these territories.
As a result, Arab nationalism – which previously admired Western Europe – now grew increasingly hostile to the Western presence in the Middle East, and consequently hostile to Western ideals.
In the 1920s Arab nationalism became increasingly authoritarian; drawing inspiration from the Fascist movements in Italy and Germany.
In the 1940s – following the dafeat of Nazi Germany – Arab authoritarianism lived on, and began to draw inspiration from Socialism in the Soviet Union.
Islamic Imperialism
Over the past few decades an Islamist element was added to the mix. This was bolstered by the Islamist revolution in Iran of 1979, and with the increasing popularity of religious political movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, throughout the Middle East.
Islamism presented a challenge to secular authocratic Arab regimes. In response, these regimes often chose to ban political opposition to the regime from these groups. At the same time, Arab regimes subordinated elements of the Islamist ideology to the state; thus maintaining internal stability for the regime.
This meant that Islamist movements could operate as social organizations and openly spread their ideology – as long as they did not challenge the ruling party. Any political aspirations were brutally crushed, sometimes with the use of deadly force. Yet – with the notable exception of Jordan – no Arab or Muslim regime has challenged Islamist ideology. This reality has allowed Islamism to become the most powerful ideological force across the Muslim world.
Thus, at the time when Arab nationalists believed in individual liberties and establishing a constitutional government they wished the Jews “a most hearty welcome home” to Palestine, and supported “Arabs and Jews … attain[ing] their national ideals together.”
But as Arab aspirations became increasingly authoritarian and imperialistic, Zionism became a bitter enemy. In the Arab view, Zionism and the Jewish homeland now represent both Western presence in the Middle East and Western ideals.
The Core of the Conflict
This post demonstrated that Arab hatred toward the Jewish state has nothing to do with Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians.
It has nothing to do with the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
It has nothing to do with the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a clash of ideologies!
On the one hand you have Zionist ideology, which promotes freedom and equality, and working for the good of humanity:
“Every man will be as free and undisturbed in his faith or his disbelief as he is in his nationality. And if it should occur that men of other creeds and different nationalities come to live amongst us, we should accord them honorable protection and equality before the law”
“We ourselves will use and carry on every new attempt in our Jewish land . . . for the good of humanity, so we shall proceed in everything else in the same humane spirit, making of the new land a land of experiments and a model State”
- The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl, 1896
On the other hand you have Islamist ideology, which promotes oppression, violence, and imperialism:
Fight those [among Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
- Quran 9:29
The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
- Hadith: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53:386
Previous Articles:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
1918. Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann; left, also wearing Arab outfit as a sign of friendship
Geo Politics
a) Ending the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state, signing a peace treaty with Israel, and declaring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and
b) Continuing the struggle until the destruction of the Jewish state (at the expense of not establishing a Palestinian state)
The vast majority of Palestinians (81.7%) chose to continue the struggle until the destruction of the Jewish state. Only 14% of Palestinian chose to end the conflict and establish a state.
Given the fact that any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel would have to pass a Palestinian referendum, it is clear that for Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
While the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war, maybe it is time to stop and ask: why is there such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and is this hatred justified? What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The Arab side claims that the main grievances they have with Israel are the following:
- Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians
- the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel
- the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel
Yet, the Arab side claims that there is an issue that is more deeply at the core of the conflict. Namely, the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
This post will demonstrate that Arab hatred toward the Jewish state has nothing to do with Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians.
It has nothing to do with the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
It has nothing to do with the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a clash of ideologies!
Rhetoric vs. Reality
While the issues raised by the Arab side may be legitimate in themselves, it is far from evident that the Arab side does not merely use these issues as tactical ploys; cynically exploiting humanitarian and political grievances to advance a political agenda – the destruction of the Jewish state – at the expense of innocent people on both sides of the conflict.
Exploiting legitimate grievances to advance national interests is not uncommon throughout history. The most glaring example of this is the “concern” of the German Nazi Party over the plight of Germans in the Sudetenland:
In August 1938, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, sent Lord Runciman to Czechoslovakia to see if he could obtain a settlement between the Czechoslovak government and the Germans in the Sudetenland. His mission failed because the Sudeten German Party refused all conciliating proposals (on Hitler’s command). Runciman reported the following to the British government regarding Czech policy towards the German minority in the preceding decades:
“Czech officials and Czech police, speaking little or no German, were appointed in large numbers to purely German districts; Czech agricultural colonists were encouraged to settle on land confiscated under the Land Reform in the middle of German populations; for the children of these Czech invaders Czech schools were built on a large scale; there is a very general belief that Czech firms were favoured as against German firms in the allocation of State contracts and that the State provided work and relief for Czechs more readily than for Germans. I believe these complaints to be in the main justified. Even as late as the time of my Mission, I could find no readiness on the part of the Czechoslovak Government to remedy them on anything like an adequate scale … the feeling among the Sudeten Germans until about three or four years ago was one of hopelessness. But the rise of Nazi Germany gave them new hope. I regard their turning for help towards their kinsmen and their eventual desire to join the Reich as a natural development in the circumstances.” (Wikipedia)
On September 21, Czechoslovakia capitulated to British and French demands to cede the Sudetenland to Germany. The next day, however, Hitler added new demands, insisting that the claims of ethnic Germans in Poland and Hungary also be satisfied. On September 30, 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed. On the same day, UK Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain delivered his famous “peace for our time” speech to delighted crowds in London.
In March 1939, the German army conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia, and on September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and World War II began.
Certainly, there is no equivalence between the actions of Arab leaders and Nazi Germany. The example above was used because it clearly illustrates the geopolitical dynamics of conflict: peace can only be achieved if there is a sincere desire on both sides to resolve differences. If, however, a side in a conflict is exploiting grievances for political ends, any signed agreement would be nothing but a temporary ceasefire – a strategic victory for the aggressing side that puts the region on the path to more violence and war.
Is the Arab side genuinely concerned about the issues it presents? Or is it merely manufacturing outrage among the public by exploiting these legitimate grievances to promote its political agenda?
Let us consider the issues raised by the Arab side one by one:
Are Arabs genuinely concerned over alleged Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians?
Atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, some 60,000 Arabs, including several thousand Palestinians, lost their lives in wars with Israel – wars which Arab states themselves instigated.
The killing of thousands of Arabs in wars with Israel would certainly create animosity toward Israel. However, that is not the issue we are dealing with here.
The issue we are dealing with is the following: with the exception of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and former Soviet republics with Muslim majority – the vast majority of Arab and Muslim countries (which number 22 and 57 respectively) refuse to recognize, and are openly hostile to, the State of Israel. If the reason for this hostility is Israel’s killing of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians in wars, then we should expect these states to be hostile to other countries that killed thousands of Arabs. On the other hand, if Arabs apply a double-standard toward Israel, then we must conclude that Arabs do not genuinely care about Israel’s treatment of Arabs and Palestinians. In that case, the hostility of Arab masses toward Israel is the result of manufactured outrage generated by Arab political and social elites, and Arab leaders are exploiting the situation to promote their political agenda: the destruction of the Jewish state.
Do Arab states apply a double-standard in their approach toward Israel when there are Arab casualties? Let’s compare the Arab response to the Gaza War in 2009 to it’s response to the Syrian protests of 2011:
Gaza War
Between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009, Israel conducted Operation Cast Lead against the Hamas terror organization in Gaza, as a response to Hamas’ firing of hundreds of rockets on Israeli cities. During the conflict some 1400 Palestinians were killed – about half of which were civilians, and the rest were Hamas militants.
On January 1, 2009 – five days into the fighting, by which time about 320 Palestinians were killed (mostly Hamas militants) – Libya has presented a draft resolution from the Arab League (representing 22 Arab countries) to a UN Security Council emergency meeting. The resolution “strongly condemn[ed] all military attacks and the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israel…” and called for an immediate ceasefire.
Syrian Protests
Since March 15, 2011, pro-democratic demonstrations took place in major cities across Syria. The Syrian regime responded by brutally suppressing the demonstrations, and firing life ammunition into crowds of protestors. By the end of May 2011 – some two months after the bloodshed started – over a 1000 Syrians have been killed by the Syrian army. Around that time Britain, Portugal, Germany and France have circulated a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning the Syrian government for the brutal crackdown.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – representing 57 Muslim-majority countries, including 22 Arab countries – declared the following in response to the UN draft: “There are no grounds to consider this issue in the UN Security Council… …We will not even read the text [of the draft resolution].”
In other words, when Israel is concerned the killing of 320 Arabs (mostly militants) warrants an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Otherwise, the indiscriminant killing of over a 1000 Arabs (almost all civilians) does not even warrant looking at the draft resolution after two months of violence. This is a clear case of an Arab double-standard toward Israel, which indicates that Arab states are exploiting the situation for political gain.
But perhaps we need to get a broader perspective on Israel’s killing of Arabs and Palestinians. How does Israel’s killing of some 60,000 Arabs in wars since 1947 compare with the death toll of Arabs and Muslims in other conflicts?
Arab and Muslim Death Toll
The following map shows the death toll from internal conflicts in the Islamic World since the end of WWII to the present.
The map specifically excludes the death toll in conflicts that involved foreign non-Arab or non-Muslim forces (for example the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, or the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the 2000s). Which means that the death toll on the map is solely the result of conflicts, wars, and genocide campaigns within or among Arab or Muslim majority countries.
It is evident that far more Arabs and Muslims were killed by other Arab or Muslim countries than by Israel – in fact, about 100 times more!
Yet, no other country’s actions are delegitimized by Arab countries like Israel’s. No other country’s right to exist is challenged and threatened by Arab countries like Israel’s. No other country’s actions are called “blood-thirsty“, “genocidal“, “terrorist“, or “Nazi” by Arab countries like Israel’s actions are.
This means that the Arab public’s outrage over Israel’s treatment of Arabs and Palestinians is not an objective response to the situation on the ground. Rather, this outrage is manufactured by the Arab media, and Arab political and social elites.
All these point to the conclusion that Arab leaders are not interested in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather, they are exploiting the situation to promote their political agenda: the destruction of the Jewish state.
Let’s consider the next issue:
Occupation and Brutal Treatment of Palestinians
Is Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination genuine? Are Arabs truly concerned over Israel’s alleged brutal treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories?
While Arab states show vehement and unanimous support for the Palestinian struggle against occupation, including armed “resistance” (which manifests itself in terror attacks and mass murder of Israeli civilians), this support only began to manifest itself when Israel became the occupying power in 1967.
Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Yet, during that time period no Arab state supported Palestinian self-determination, and no Arab state supported Palestinian statehood. What is more interesting though, is that Palestinians themselves did not demand self-determination or statehood when they were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Instead, the Palestinian National Liberation Movement – Fatah, founded in 1959 – called for “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”
In fact, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 was not Israel’s initiative – it came as a direct result of the attempts by Arab states to annihilate Israel. On May 30, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced:
“The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel … to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations.”
In the 1967 War, Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Following the war the Arab League met in Khartoum, in September 1967, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. It reached a consensus that there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel. In addition, it urged the continued state of belligerency with Israel.
Does this mean that Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination is insincere? Is this another instance where Arab leaders are exploiting the suffering of the Palestinian people as a weapon in the conflict against Israel? Not necessarily. It is possible that Arab support for the Palestinian opposition to Israeli occupation stems from the situation on the ground. Perhaps life under Israeli occupation is more difficult than it was under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation? It is also possible that Arab states decided to change their policy toward the self-determination of stateless people. Let’s consider these possibilities:
Brutal Treatment of Palestinians
Arab leaders constantly accuse Israel of “bulldozing homes, reservoirs, wells and water pipes,” of “destroying crops and orchards” and of the “deliberate starvation and holding 3.2 million people under lock and key.” The Gaza Strip, under Israeli siege, is often referred to by Arab leaders as a “massive jail” or a “concentration camp.”
But do these accusations reflect the reality on the ground? Are Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza Strip truly experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe because of Israel? All Human Development evidence seems to point to the contrary:
Today life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is 73.92 years, while infant mortality is at 17.12 deaths per 1,000 live births. In the West Bank life expectancy is 75.01 years. Infant mortality is at 14.92 deaths per 1,000 live births.
The average life expectancy for Arab states is 69.1, while the world average is 69.3. Average infant mortality for Arab states is 38, while for the world it is 41.61. In other words, living standards for Palestinians under Israeli occupation are higher than the living standards for most Arabs in the Arab world! At the same time about 97% of Palestinians live under the direct rule of the Palestinian Authority – not Israeli rule.
But is life under Israeli occupation more difficult than it was under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation?
Again, the evidence points to the contrary:
During 20 years of Arab occupation Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 42 to 44. During the next 20 years of Israeli occupation Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 44 to 63.
During 20 years of Arab occupation Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 45 to 46. During the next 20 years of Israeli occupation Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 46 to 67.
Now let’s consider the other possibility; is it possible that Arab states simply decided to change their policy toward stateless people?
Support for Self-Determination of Stateless People
Palestinians are not the only stateless people in the Middle East. In fact, the Middle East is home to the largest stateless people in the world, which number some 30 million people – the Kurdish people. The indigenous homeland of the Kurdish people – Kurdistan – is divided against their will between four sovereign states – Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey – none of which recognizes the lawful rights of Kurds for self-determination.
The Kurdish people experienced much devastation in their struggle for self-determination. During WWI the Turk government deported some 700,000 Kurds from their ancestral homeland in an attempt to eliminate Kurdish identity. Some 350,000 of these Kurds perished in death marches. In 1937–1938, approximately 50,000–70,000 Kurds were killed in the suppression of the Dersim Rebellion. In the 1980s an estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped from the map. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and more than 375,000 were displaced.
During the Iran-Iraq war, between March 1987 and April 1989, the Iraqi army carried out a genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, which included the use of chemical weapons. Some 2,000 villages were completely destroyed, at least 120,000 Kurds were killed, and more than a million became refugees.
The unimaginable suffering endured by the Kurdish people should inspire sympathy and admiration from every person who values freedom and human dignity. Yet, the Arab public shows no support for Kurdish self-determination, and no Arab state supports Kurdish self-determination or statehood.
How can this absurd situation be explained? Arab leaders did not call for Palestinian statehood when Palestinians were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Yet, as Palestinian standard of living significantly improved under Israeli occupation, suddenly Arab leaders are concerned with the plight of Palestinians?
How can Arab leaders decry Israel’s alleged brutal treatment of the Palestinian people under occupation, and at the same time be completely silent about the mass murder and displacement of Kurds in Turkey and the genocide of Kurds in Iraq?
Yet again, Arab leaders are exposed for their hypocrisy. Certainly, the Palestinian people have a legitimate right for self-determination and statehood. Life under Israeli occupation is difficult and replete with injustice. However, Arab support for Palestinian statehood and self-determination has nothing to do with the plight of Palestinians. Instead of working to bring peace and stability to the region, Arab leaders are exploiting the suffering of the Palestinian people to manufacture outrage, and use it as a weapon in their war against Israel.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees
The question of a Palestinian “Right of Return” into Israel has already been discussed in Part I of the series: The Arab-Israeli Conflict : Why Peace is Impossible. However, it may be worth repeating.
Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Finally, let us consider what the Arab side claims to be at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict: the claim that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
Establishment of the Jewish homeland
On January 3, 1919, Emir Faisal Ibn al-Hussein – the son of the “King of all Arabs,” Hussein bin Ali – and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement as part of the Paris Peace Conference following World War I.
The agreement called for an Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.
Article IV of the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement stated that:
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
(1918. Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann; left, also wearing Arab outfit as a sign of friendship)
In a March 3, 1919, letter to the president of the Zionist Organization of America Emir Faisal wrote:
“We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
The Arabs… look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home… I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world.”
On March 23, 1918, Hussein bin Ali himself wrote in the daily newspaper of Mecca, Al Qibla, that Palestine was:
“a sacred and beloved homeland of its original sons [the Jews]; the return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren.”
He also called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare.
What went wrong?
As Emir Faisal stated, Arab leaders were fully acquainted with Zionist aspirations for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and viewed them as “moderate and proper.” They openly supported large scale immigration of Jews to Palestine, and encouraged Palestine’s Arab population to welcome the Jews.
What then brought such a sharp reversal in the Arab position toward Zionism and the Jewish homeland? To understand what caused this change we must take a brief historic overview of the Middle East:
Since the Arab-Muslim conquest in the 7th century AD, the Middle East has been under the rule of successive Islamic empires (these included, among others, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, and the Ottomans). And while Europe languished in the Dark Ages, the Muslim world thrived as the center of trade, science, and culture, and as a dominant force in the world.
However, all that began to change during the time of the latest Islamic empire – the Ottoman Empire. While Muslim science and technology had been highly regarded in medieval times, by this period the influence on learning became conservative and regressive, and innovation was largely suppressed. As Europe was on the rise following the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, the Ottoman Empire was in a steady state of decline.
Arab Nationalism and Islamic Modernism
Toward the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century the Ottomans were struggling to hold the empire together. Internal conditions were rapidly deteriorating, and in many parts of the Middle East the Ottomans became rulers in name only.
At the same time, a sense of Arab nationalism was developing in Arab intellectual circles throughout the Middle East. Arab nationalism was strongly influenced by European thought – a result of Arab admiration for the technological successes of Western Europe, and the heavy influx of Christian missionaries and educators from Western countries into the Middle East.
In the view of Arab patriots at the time, European modernism itself was of Islamic origin. The Arabs, on the other hand, had deviated from true Islam and thus suffered decline. Arab nationalists believed that “an Islamic governments should revive true Islam that would… …pave way for the establishment of constitutional representative government and freedom which was manifested in the West at the time.”
Muhammad Abduh, the founder of Islamic Modernism, has said: “I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.” He believed in and promoted a form of Islam that “would liberate men from enslavement, provide equal rights for all human beings, abolish the religious scholar’s monopoly on exegesis and abolish racial discrimination and religious compulsion” – the exact opposite of Islamism, which is the most powerful ideological force across the Muslim world today.
(for more on Islamic Modernism, see Mustafa Akyol’s excellent TED talk, “Faith versus tradition in Islam”)
World War I
What finally brought the demise and dissolution of the empire was the Ottomans’ fatal decision to join the Central Powers in World War I.
While the Ottomans were fighting alongside the Central Powers, the British were already preparing for the post-war era, and deciding the fate of the lands that were under Ottoman control in the Middle East. At the time there were two entities that contended for territory in the Middle East – the Sharif of Mecca, who sought to establish an Arab state over the entire Middle East, and the Zionist movement which sought to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The British made territorial promises both to the Zionist movement and to the Sharif of Mecca in exchange for their support in the war effort.
The Sharif of Mecca
Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, claimed to have direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad, and acted as the traditional guardian of Islam’s most holy sites of Mecca and Medina. The Sharif agreed to help the British by leading an Arab revolt against the Ottomans. In return he demanded to become the ruler of an Arab state spanning the entire Middle East. The British agreed to grant to the Sharif territories from Egypt to Persia, with the exception of “imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast” (which, according to the British, includes Palestine). In June 1916 Hussein launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans, and in October he declared himself “King of all Arabs.”
Arab Authoritarianism
By the end of 1918, the Ottoman Empire was defeated, and in 1919, the Paris Peace Conference convened.
In the conference the Allied Powers set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers. The League of Nations was established. And diplomats from over 29 countries came up with a series of treaties that reshaped the map of Europe and the world.
Also in the conference, Emir Faisal – representing Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca – and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. The agreement called for an Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.
However, Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement survived only a few months.
Although the Sharif of Mecca was promised a state spanning from Egypt to Persia (with the exception of some territories), the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France divided the Middle East between the two imperial powers. Arabs leaders felt betrayed. They expected to gain independence immediately, but instead the Allied Powers carved up the Middle East, and set up provisional British and French mandates of administration over these territories.
As a result, Arab nationalism – which previously admired Western Europe – now grew increasingly hostile to the Western presence in the Middle East, and consequently hostile to Western ideals.
In the 1920s Arab nationalism became increasingly authoritarian; drawing inspiration from the Fascist movements in Italy and Germany.
In the 1940s – following the dafeat of Nazi Germany – Arab authoritarianism lived on, and began to draw inspiration from Socialism in the Soviet Union.
Islamic Imperialism
Over the past few decades an Islamist element was added to the mix. This was bolstered by the Islamist revolution in Iran of 1979, and with the increasing popularity of religious political movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, throughout the Middle East.
Islamism presented a challenge to secular authocratic Arab regimes. In response, these regimes often chose to ban political opposition to the regime from these groups. At the same time, Arab regimes subordinated elements of the Islamist ideology to the state; thus maintaining internal stability for the regime.
This meant that Islamist movements could operate as social organizations and openly spread their ideology – as long as they did not challenge the ruling party. Any political aspirations were brutally crushed, sometimes with the use of deadly force. Yet – with the notable exception of Jordan – no Arab or Muslim regime has challenged Islamist ideology. This reality has allowed Islamism to become the most powerful ideological force across the Muslim world.
Thus, at the time when Arab nationalists believed in individual liberties and establishing a constitutional government they wished the Jews “a most hearty welcome home” to Palestine, and supported “Arabs and Jews … attain[ing] their national ideals together.”
But as Arab aspirations became increasingly authoritarian and imperialistic, Zionism became a bitter enemy. In the Arab view, Zionism and the Jewish homeland now represent both Western presence in the Middle East and Western ideals.
The Core of the Conflict
This post demonstrated that Arab hatred toward the Jewish state has nothing to do with Israeli atrocities against Arabs and Palestinians.
It has nothing to do with the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
It has nothing to do with the denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Jewish homeland was established – with the help of Western powers – without considering the wishes of Palestine’s Arab inhabitants.
What is really at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a clash of ideologies!
On the one hand you have Zionist ideology, which promotes freedom and equality, and working for the good of humanity:
“Every man will be as free and undisturbed in his faith or his disbelief as he is in his nationality. And if it should occur that men of other creeds and different nationalities come to live amongst us, we should accord them honorable protection and equality before the law”
“We ourselves will use and carry on every new attempt in our Jewish land . . . for the good of humanity, so we shall proceed in everything else in the same humane spirit, making of the new land a land of experiments and a model State”
- The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl, 1896
On the other hand you have Islamist ideology, which promotes oppression, violence, and imperialism:
Fight those [among Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
- Quran 9:29
The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
- Hadith: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53:386
Previous Articles:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
1918. Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann; left, also wearing Arab outfit as a sign of friendship Geo Politics
You might also like:
Any restraint is counterproductive. Israel must respond with maximum extreme force. This is the only way to subdue the enemy. This is the enemy that wants to throw you into the sea.
I would gladly support a major offensive against Gaza or any other Arab Palestinians that are hurting Israelis in any shape or form.
Many years ago when Sharon was defense minister of Israel (while his wife was alive) his policy was, any violent acts by the Palestinian Arabs were returned with extreme force, and it worked.
Why have we changed tactics, have we become too soft, too worried about world opinion. We are paying for this behavior with Israeli lives and damage to Israel's economy. With this approach, matters will only get worse, as the past has proven. The Arabs treat concessions and lack of extreme response as a sign of weakness.
People of the world ultimately respect a government that protects its people at any cost. Not a government that causes its people to run to shelters constantly and more.
Let us go back to the old ways and respond with very extreme force, no restraint, no concession. You will see in the long run, it will bring a much more peaceful life in Israel.
Terror should be handled in the following manner. When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.
If the Arabs cannot control their own people, extreme or not, they will have to pay the price.
There is a divine statement that says “if someone comes to kill you, you should beat him to it, and kill him first.
Let us celebrate living in safety in Greater Israel.
Remember the Arabs are the occupiers.
Greater Israel belongs to the Jewish people for over 3,000 years.
King David fought many wars to bring peace to Israel; he did not use restraint at all, only extreme force.
The expanded Land of Greater Israel from Nile to Euphrates has enough territory to settle all the Israelites together with the strangers among them! There is an opinion that the entire population of the world could be placed in the state of Texas, which consist of 268,820 square miles or 696,200 square kilometers. By comparison, the Biblical Land of Israel is not “tiny” at all. Its borders will include the Eastern part of Egypt, Sinai, Lebanon, Jordan, island of Cyprus, part of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, parts of Iraq and Turkey. It is estimated that the Promised Land is eight times the size of Texas. The population of all the children of Israel is much less than that of the whole world. It would be no problem to accommodate all Israelites on their Land. Especially, as the prophets say, all the Arab and Muslim enemy-nations surrounding Israel will have been defeated and expelled out of the Land. Their lands will be repossessed by Israelites.
“Those who laid you waste depart from you. They that swallowed thee up shall be far away” (Isaiah 49:17, 19).
Israel should annex Judea and Samaria immediately.
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
YJ Draiman
PS
Indeed, history shows that only a vigorous and unapologetic self-defense permits survival in a hostile world.