The Arab-Israeli Conflict
Causes and Consequences

Causes

1. Jewish vs Arab Nationalism
The Arab-Israeli Conflict
Causes and Consequences

Causes

1. Jewish vs Arab Nationalism

2. British decision to end mandate
3. UN role; Partition plan
4. Israel’s declaration of independence
5. Arab rejection of the state of Israel
6. Israel’s control of the area
7. Rise of Palestinian Nationalist movements

Consequences

1. Protracted conflict: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973
2. Increased superpower influence in Middle East
3. Role of the PLO
4. Growth of extreme groups
5. Increase in political activism and violence
6. Hardliners on both sides
7. Slow Peace Process
E.g. Camp David Accords
8. UN operations in Mid East
Oslo Mediation
9. Failure of 2000 Camp David


CAUSES

1. JEWISH vs ARAB NATIONALISM

Arab Nationalism

The rise of Arab Nationalism took root in the 19th century, where a national identity took roots among the Arabic-speaking populations of the Ottoman Empire. By World War I, this identity developed into a fully-fledged revolutionary movement, a revolt against the Ottoman Empire.

However, it was only after World War II when Arab nationalism gradually took the form of a political movement. The past was glorified, political consciousness was raised and a nationalist spirit was kindled by education of young Arabs.

However, Arabs had different identities and loyalties to tribe, sect, region, and religion. Within the Arab identity, there was tension between Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, and other regional identities. There were differences in language and religion also. Therefore it was hard to get some form of unity.

With such odds battling against the movement, it became all the more important to keep Palestine in Arab hands. It was hoped that Arab unity would be forged on the anvil of war against the common enemy.

Pan-Arabism is a movement for unification among the Arab peoples and nations of the Middle East. It is simply defined as the desire to forge a single Arabian super state. Pan-Arabism has tended to be secular and often socialist, and has strongly opposed colonialism and Western political involvement in the Arab world.
From the 1930s, hostility toward Zionist aims in Palestine was a major rallying point for Arab nationalists. The movement found official expression after World War II in the Arab League and in such unification attempts as the Arab Federation (1958) of Iraq and Jordan, the United Arab Republic, the Arab Union (1958), the United Arab Emirates, and the Arab Maghreb Union. The principal instrument of Pan-Arabism in the early 1960s was the Ba'ath party, which was active in most Arab states. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who was not a Ba'athist, expressed similar ideals of Arab unity and socialism. The defeat of the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 and the death (1970) of Nasser set back the cause of Pan-Arabism.

Jewish Nationalism

Jewish Nationalism or Zionism expresses the historical link between the Jewish people and Israel. Zionism arose as an active national movement in the 19th century. Due to anti-semitism, Jews have faced persecution and numerous massacres, such as the slaughter by the Crusaders, burning at the Stake during the Spanish Inquisition and in the Nazi Holocaust. These actions have been made on several pretexts, such as social, economic, religious or even national.

Alongside these, they have been expelled from almost every European country. There came a need to have a land of their own, a place where no more persecution takes place – their God-given homeland, Israel.

This area is known as the famous Land of Israel. According to the Bible, particularly in Genesis, the Land of Israel was promised as an everlasting possession to the descendants of Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by God, making it the Promised Land.

On that day, God made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river the Euphrates. The land of the Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites; the Hittites, Perizzites, Refaim; the Emorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." - Genesis 15:18-21

Zionism also promoted a reassertion of Jewish culture. An important element in this reawakening was the revival of Hebrew, long restricted to liturgy and literature, as a living national language, for use in government and the military, education and science, the market and the street.

Despite knowledge that Palestine (the Land of Israel) had an Arab population, few regarded the Arab presence as a real obstacle to the fulfillment of Zionism. At that time in the late 19th century, Arab nationalism did not yet exist in a strong form, and the Arab population of Palestine was sparse. Friction between it and the returning Jews was believed to be easily avoided.

Contrarily, the renewed Jewish presence in the Land met with militant Arab opposition. It was a clash between two peoples both regarding the country as their own - the Jews by virtue of their historical and spiritual connection, and the Arabs because of their centuries-long presence in the country.

Having faced much rejection and longing for a land where their people are free from persecutions as they have experienced before, the Jews naturally feel a strong nationalist emotion for Israel.


2. BRITISH DECISION TO END MANDATE

During WWI, after Damascus (in the Ottoman Empire) fell, the Arabs' belief in British honesty in which they had been led to believe the British would support a Palestinian state, was shattered by two events which took place in November 1917. In Russia the Bolsheviks seized power. They broke off fighting the Germans and published the Sykes-Picot Agreement to show the trickery of the Imperial Russian government's allies. The Arabs were furious when they realised that the Agreement had been made only a year after McMahon had promised British support for their independence.
Worse, the Bolsheviks published the Agreement just a few days after the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, wrote to Lord Roths¬child, the leading Zionist in Britain:

Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

This letter became known as the Balfour Declaration and was the basis of British policy towards the settlement of Jews in Palestine. As for the Palestinian Arabs who made up about 92 per cent of the popu¬lation, all that they got was a promise that the British would protect their civil and religious rights.
The Zionists saw the Declaration as a green light to set up a national home in Palestine. To the Arabs, it was another act of treachery.

British Mandate of Palestine

The United Kingdom was granted control of Palestine by the Versailles Peace Conference which established the League of Nations. During World War I, the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British; and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.

The 1937 Peel Report argued for a further partition of Palestine, separating it into separate Arab and Jewish states. The 1938 Woodhead Report reduced the Jewish State to less than one percent of the original British Mandate. The Zionists rejected both. During and after World War II, Jewish militancy increased, escalating as the British established relocation camps in Cyprus for illegal immigrants, and tried to deport intercept illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, notably Germany. The 1946 Morrison Plan advocated the separation of Palestine into two separate states for Jews and Arabs, with British control over key areas. This was rejected, and the United Nations convened on April 2nd, 1947 to determine Palestine’s fate. The UN voted for a separation of Palestine into two separate states, with control given to Transjordan. The Zionist-led Jews tentatively agreed to the plan, while the Arabs considered it unacceptable. This led to future conflict in late 1947 and early 1948 that preceded the War for Independence.


3. UN ROLE AND THE PARTITION PLAN

However, the British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. Following WW II, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the British refused to lift the ban on immigration and admit only 100,000 displaced persons to Palestine. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several attacks against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.

British government decided in February 1947 that it would hand the problem over to the United Nations, and would leave Palestine in May 1948.

The United Nations appointed a Special Committee on Palestine (known by its initials as UNSCOP), which reported in August 1947 in favour of the partition of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, within a joint frame¬work which would maintain their economic unity.

The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.On 29 November 1947, UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. The plan would have partitioned the territory of Western Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area, encompassing Bethlehem, coming under international control.

The United Kingdom refused to implement the plan, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. It also refused to share with the UN Palestine Commission the administration of Palestine during the transitional period, and decided to terminate the British mandate of Palestine on May 15th, 1948. The failure of the British government and the United Nations to implement this plan, prior agreement between the Jewish Agency and King Abdullah to divide Palestine between them, and rejection of the plan by the Arabs resulted in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The country once known as Palestine was now divided into three parts, each under separate political control. The State of Israel encompassed over 77 percent of the territory. Jordan occupied East Jerusalem and the hill country of central Palestine (the West Bank). Egypt took control of the coastal plain around the city of Gaza (the Gaza Strip). The Palestinian Arab state envisioned by the UN partition plan was never established.

The response by Palestine's neighbors was overwhelmingly negative. Intent on preventing any Jewish entity in the region, they rejected the plan, and in what was to be a precursor to many more wars, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded the new country with the declared intent of destroying it.






4. Israel’s declaration of independence and Israel’s control of the area and the Establishment of State of Israel

The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight. The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union. It was, however, opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs), who felt it was being established at their expense.

In 1950, the Knesset(legislative branch of the Israeli government) passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel. This, together with the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and the later flood of expelled Jews from Arab countries, had the effect of creating a large and apparently permanent Jewish majority in Israel. Futhermore, the Absentee Property Law that was passed in the same year provided for confiscation of the property and land left behind by departing Palestinians, the so-called "absentees". Arabs who never left Israel, and received citizenship after the war, but stayed for a few days in a nearby village had their property confiscated. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees" - people present at the time but considered absent.

Jerusalem

After establishment, Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950 and all the branches of Israeli government (Presidential, Legislative, Judicial and Administrative) are seated in Jerusalem. In 1950, given that the city was divided between Israel and Jordan, this proclamation related only to western Jerusalem.
However, after the Six Day War in 1967, Israeli legislation incorporated East Jerusalem into Israel, annexing it to the municipality of Jerusalem, and making it a de facto part of its capital. Israel enshrined the status of united Jerusalem, west and east, as its undivided capital, in Israel's 1980 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel.

The Temple Mount, ground zero in Jerusalem, to Jews and some Christians ,or Al-Haram As-Sharif (the noble sanctuary) to Arabs and Muslims, was the site of the first and second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. According to Judaism, it is to be the site of the third and final Temple to be rebuilt with the coming of the Messiah. It is also the site of two major Muslim religious shrines, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. It is the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest site in Islam


Treatment of Arabs (Palestinians) in region
Israel established a military administration to govern the Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Under this arrangement, Palestinians were denied many basic political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of political association. Palestinian nationalism was criminalized as a threat to Israeli security, which meant that even displaying the Palestinian national colours was a punishable act. All aspects of Palestinian life were regulated, and often severely restricted by the Israeli military administration. For example, Israel forbade the gathering wild thyme (za`tar), a basic element of Palestinian cuisine.
Israeli policies and practices in the West Bank and Gaza have included extensive use of collective punishments such as curfews, house demolitions and closure of roads, schools and community institutions. Hundreds of Palestinian political activists have been deported to Jordan or Lebanon, tens of thousands of acres of Palestinian land have been confiscated, and thousands of trees have been uprooted. Since 1967, over 300,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned without trial, and over half a million have been tried in the Israeli military court system. Torture of Palestinian prisoners has been a common practice since at least 1971, and dozens of people have died in detention from abuse or neglect. Israeli officials have claimed that harsh measures and high rates of imprisonment are necessary to thwart terrorism. According to Israel, Palestinian terrorism includes all forms of opposition to the occupation (including non-violence).
Israel has built hundreds of settlements and permitted hundreds of thousands of its own Jewish citizens to move to the West Bank and Gaza, despite that this constitutes a breach of international law. Israel has justified the violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international laws governing military occupation of foreign territory on the grounds that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not technically "occupied" because they were never part of the sovereign territory of any state. Therefore, according to this interpretation, Israel is not a foreign "occupier" but a legal "administrator" of territory whose status remains to be determined. The international community has rejected the Israeli official position that the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied, and has maintained that international law should apply there. But little effort has been mounted to enforce international law or hold Israel accountable for the numerous violations it has engaged in since 1967.

5. RISE OF PALESTINIAN NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS

A display of the Arab's resistance to the formation of the state would be the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the 1948 War of Independence. In 'retaliation' of the UN Partition Plan, the Arabs (led by the Arab Higher Committee) immediately launched a three-day protest strikes and instigated riots on the Jewish population, claiming the lives of 62 Jews. The violence, however, escalated as the days went by. On 9 January 1948, approximately 1,000 Arabs (mainly Palestinian) started attacking the Jewish communities in Northern Palestinian with the help from volunteers from neighbouring countries.


6. ARAB RESISTANCE

Naturally, the Arabs were angered that a part of their land was given to the Jews without being informed beforehand. Even if they were informed earlier, they would also be unhappy about such agreement. Firstly, both groups faced the problem of religious differences. The Arabs were Muslims and the Jews were Christians. Besides this, many Arab-Palestians became stateless (2"d class citizens). Furthermore, Israeli settlements were seen as insults on Palestinian dignity and freedom of movement. Not only that, they were also seen as a threat to their hopes for an independent Palestinian nation. Lastly, the Israelis took most of the best areas for themselves and left the Palestinians with the less desirable areas.

In reaction to these causes which were seen as unreasonable treatment to them, they started an organization also known as the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). They use terrorism to try making the Jews afraid of them and thereby giving them back the land. For example, the Arabs used leftover British vehicles during the war and drive into Jewish-filled places and bomb practically anything they feel worth bombing like buildings, people. Other than this type of extreme actions, they also organize strikes, refuse to pay taxes and go against the government thereby causing civil unrest within the country. The situation was so bad that even the British and French found it hard to control. However it seems that the more the Arabs resist, the more they get hurt. The Israelites were also unwilling to give up the land for which they fought so hard to get.

In a situation with both parties unwilling to give up their own struggle and ideals, they thought by fighting it out, they could resolve things. However, these only made the hatred more deep and casualties to both sides.


CONSEQUENCES

1. Protracted Conflict

Wars and Skirmishes of the Arab-Israeli Conflicts

a) The 1947-1949 War (Israeli Independence War)

Cause
In 1947, the UN proposed a partition plan whereby the Palestine would be divided into two states, an Arab and a Jewish one, with the disputed Jerusalem becoming an international zone.

Zionists Jews agreed to the plan although they were unhappy not to be offered Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Arabs rejected the plan believing that the UN had acted under Zionist pressure.

Event
On November 1947, the UN general Assembly voted to accept the plan and within days, military and guerilla conflicts erupted between small Jewish and Arab forces.

With the British departure from Palestine in 15 May 1948, the Zionists declared the founding of the state of Israel. Soon after, neighboring Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq invaded the new state.

The Israeli forces were seemingly fewer in strength but were better trained and organized. When shipments of arms started reaching Israel from Europe, the war swung in Israel’s favor.

It was not until the UN arrangement for a ceasefire that the war ended.

Consequences
Under the UN agreement signed by the other Arab states and Israel, former Palestine was divided into three parts. Israel controlled 77% of it, while East Jerusalem and the West Bank were allotted to Transjordan and the Gaza Strip was given to Egypt.

b) The Suez Crisis (29 October to 6 November 1956)

Causes
After an army coup in 1952 which overthrew the Egyptian monarchy, Gamal Abdul Nasser emerged as the country’s leader. Nasser intensified the campaign against Israel and at the same time, wanted to end the remaining British influence in the Middle East.

In July 1956, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The tolls that he can charge on the ships passing through the canal would be a valuable source of revenue for Egypt. Nasser also closed the canal and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, a move which strained relations between Egypt and Israel. He had also made enemies of Britain and France who had major economic and trading interests in the canal.

Event
The Israelis saw an opportunity to weaken an over-powerful and hostile neighboring state. An agreement was made under the table among Israel, Britain and France. It was agreed upon that Israel would invade Egypt and that Britain and France would intervene and ask the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw from the canal zone.
Meanwhile, the Anglo-French troops would then take control of the canal.

On 29 October, 1956, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, while advancing towards the canal zone rapidly.
As previously agreed, the British and French army offered to occupy the canal acting as a mediator, which Nasser disagreed. As such, Britain and France launched a joint invasion.
But before the invasion could be carried out, USA put pressure on Britain and France to withdraw their forces from the canal, fearing the possible escalation of the conflict after the Soviet Union threatened to enter the war on Egypt’s side.

Consequences
During the conflict, Israel conquered both the Sinai Peninsula as well as the Gaza Strip.

However, in March 1957, it was forced by the UN to return to its previous borders.
Israel failed to win back its shipping rights in the canal but managed to regain the freedom to use the Straits of Tiran.

Through manipulation of the media, Egyptian President Nasser persuaded his people, and other Arabs, that Egypt had won. The Canal was more Egyptian than before, and he gained great support throughout the Arab world.

A demilitarized zone was set up extending from the Gaza to Sharm el-Sheikh, policed by UN forces.


c) The Six Day War (5 June to 10 June 1967)

Causes
Israel set about to carry out its National water Carrier Plan (NWCP) in August 1963, pumping water from the Sea of Galilee to irrigate south and central Israel. Syria was gravely angered by the NWCP.

During 1964, the Arab countries met and decided to intercept Israel’s NWCP. They diverted the Banias Stream, one the sources of the River Jordan that feeds the Sea of Galilee.
Israel tried to fire at Syrian tractors and equipment which were working on the diversion project. This Syria responded with air strikes in Israeli towns.

As tensions escalated, the Soviet Union informed Syria that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border in preparations for an invasion. The claim was untrue but Syria was unaware of that fact and thus called upon Egypt for help.

Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai after Nasser requested for the UN troops to withdraw from the demilitarized zone.

Event
Interpreting this as an act of aggression, Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol began its offensive at 7.45am on 5 June 1967 after being informed that the USA would not intervene.

Israeli’s initiative started with a surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force which was the most modern and best-equipped of the Arab air forces. The poorly defended Egyptian air bases were bombed and in less than three hours, the entire air force was virtually destroyed. This granted Israel air superiority for the entire war.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) then started moving into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. After a defeat of at Abu Aweigila, Egyptian troops retreated and the Israelis completed their conquest of the Sinai.

Nasser, desperate for help from Jordan, sent a message to King Hussein on 5 June in which he pretended that the Egyptians were having the upper hand in the war. Hussein then gave orders to attack and the Jordanian army began firing at Israeli positions in Jerusalem. When Israeli forces counterattacked, they destroyed the tiny Jordanian air force and soon, conquered the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well.

Israeli’s offensive on Syria was an air strike that destroyed two thirds of the Syrian air force and forced the remaining third to retreat to distant bases. With Israeli bombardment on the Golan Heights, Syrian forces began to retreat and soon, Israel controlled the Golan Heights also.

USSR worried for Syria, a firm ally and sent a telegram to American President, Lyndon Johnson threatening military action against Israeli unless they ceased fighting.

Consequences
Both the US and the UN urged Israel to stop their advance fearing the escalation into a far more serious confrontation.

In 10th June 1967, the Israeli ordered a ceasefire at 6.30pm.

Israel emerged as a dominant Arab force in the region, defeating a combined Arab force that was far more superior in weapons and equipment.

Israel annexed the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. The West Bank and East Jerusalem was gained from Jordan and the Golan Heights were conquered from Syria.

“The Six-Day War made Israel the country with the largest Palestinian population: In round figures, 400,000 lived within its pre-1967 borders (the Israeli Arab minority), and 1.1 million in the now-occupied territories -- 600,000 in the West Bank (200,000 or more, mostly denizens of refugee camps, had fled during the war and its immediate aftermath to the East Bank), 70,000 in East Jerusalem, and 350,000 in the Gaza Strip. Of the West Bank population, only 60,000 now lived in camps; in the Gaza Strip, some 210,000 had refugee status, 170,000 of them in camps. The traumatic demolition of the status quo reawakened Palestinian identity and quickened nationalist aspirations in the conquered territories and in the Arab states.”

The UN also passed Resolution 242 on Nov 22 which called for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied regions. However, the Arabs became upset at the increasing lack of enforcement of the Resolution from the USA and the UN.

d) Yom Kippur (6 October to 22 October 1973)

Causes
After the death of Nasser, the Egyptian leadership was handed over to Anwar Sadat, who sought genuine peaceful relations with Israel. In February 1971, Sadat announced that if Israel partially withdrew their forces from the Sinai, Egypt would reopen the Suez Canal and sign a peace agreement with Israel.

Israel’s new Prime Minister, Golda Meir, refused the Egyptian offer despite pressure from the Americans to accept. Israel now receiving US military aid, felt itself in a superior position to Egypt.

Israel then started to implement resettlement policies in the Sinai and had plans to build a Mediterranean Port near in Sinai.
This worried Sadat and he felt that the only way to recover the territory was to stage an attack on Egypt.

Event
On 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a joint invasion of Israel. They chose the day deliberately as it was Yom Kippur, or the day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The Israelis were caught completely off guard and soon the forces manning the outposts of the canal were destroyed.
Within days, the Egyptians had successfully recovered the western bank of the Sinai Peninsula.

Israeli’s forces in the north were also outnumbered by Syrian tanks and artillery. The arrival of the Israeli reserve forces in the nick of time managed to prevent the Syrian’s capture of the Golan Heights. Soon, Israel was back on the offensive advancing within artillery range of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

When the Israeli army managed to cut off the Egyptian supplies, they advanced with Egypt and came to within 100 km of Cairo.

Under pressure from the USA and USSR, both sides agreed to a ceasefire on 22 October 1973, returning to the pre-war borders.


Consequences
After being caught so badly off guard, the Israeli forces managed a rapid recovery and recaptured nearly all the territories.

However, the war also shown the government’s lack of preparedness and under-estimation of the enemies which led to the resignation of Golda Meir and the Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan.

e) Other crises

i) 1970 – War of Attrition
Military clashes between Egypt and Israel occurred intermittently from the end of the Six-Say War until the spring of 1969. However, it was the large-scale offensive mounted by the Egyptian army in March 1969, coupled with Nasser's renunciation of the U.N.-Decreed cease-fire that marked the beginning of the War of Attrition. A formal declaration of intent came later, on June 23, 1969. Nasser's immediate goal was to prevent the conversion of the Suez Canal into a de facto border with Israel, while his ultimate goal was to force Israel to withdraw to the prewar border. This conflict was resolved when the United states, fearing another full-blown war, stepped in and offered peace plans.

ii) 1982 – Lebanon War
In 1982, the Israelis invaded southern Lebanon. The following is a highlight of events that led to the war and how the United Nations later stepped in. Quoted from UNIFIL’s website,: “In the early 1970s, tension along the Israel-Lebanon border increased, especially after the relocation of Palestinian armed elements from Jordan to Lebanon [see Black September]. Palestinian commando operations against Israel and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian bases in Lebanon intensified. On 11 March 1978, a commando attack in Israel resulted in many dead and wounded among the Israeli population; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) claimed responsibility for that raid. In response, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon on the night of 14/15 March [1978], and in a few days occupied the entire southern part of the country except for the city of Tyre and its surrounding area.

On 15 March 1978, the Lebanese Government submitted a strong protest to the [U.N.] Security Council against the Israeli invasion, stating that it had no connection with the Palestinian commando operation. On 19 March [1978], the Council adopted resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), in which it called upon Israel immediately to cease its military action and withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory. It also decided on the immediate establishment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The first UNIFIL troops arrived in the area on 23 March 1978.”

This war had a huge impact on the PLO and the PLO military infrastructure in southern Lebanon was destroyed and was driven out of Beirut. However, the PLO was not destroyed or mortally wounded, as Israeli Defense Minister Sharon and Israeli Prime Minister Begin had hoped and planned. Indeed, it could well be argued that the drubbing the organization received drove it, in the end, to moderate its positions, a process that culminated in Arafat's 1988 declaration recognizing Israel and repudiating terrorism. Thus, instead of demolishing the PLO...it can be argued that the invasion of Lebanon had, albeit very violently, groomed the PLO for Participation in the diplomacy and peace process that was to characterize the 1990s and was to pave the way for its assumption of authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza

Also, this invasion was closely tied to the formation of Hezbollah (Party of God) and the rise of this terrorist organization.

2. Role of PLO

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is a broad national front, or an umbrella organization, comprised of numerous organizations of the resistance movement, political parties, popular organizations, and independent personalities and figures from all sectors of life. The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the ‘sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’ and since then the PLO has represented Palestine at the United Nations, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and in many other fora. In addition to its broad national and political goals, the PLO has dealt with numerous tasks with regard to the life of the Palestinian people in their main communities and throughout the world through the establishment of several institutions in such realms as health, education, and social services. As such, the PLO is more than a national liberation movement striving to achieve the national goals of the Palestinian people, including the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The PLO’s belligerent rhetoric was matched by deeds. Terrorist attacks by the group grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. The targets were always civilians.

Most of the attacks involved Palestinian guerillas infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. The orders and logistical support for the attacks were coming, however, from Cairo and Damascus. Egyptian President Nasser’s main objective was to harass the Israelis, but a secondary one was to undermine King Hussein’s regime in Jordan.

King Hussein viewed the PLO as both a direct and indirect threat to his power. Hussein feared that the PLO might try to depose him with Nasser’s help or that the PLO’s attacks on Israel would provoke retaliatory strikes by Israeli forces that could weaken his authority. By the beginning of 1967, Hussein had closed the PLO’s offices in Jerusalem, arrested many of the group’s members, and withdrew recognition of the organization. Nasser and his friends in the region unleashed a torrent of criticism on Hussein for betraying the Arab cause. Hussein would soon have the chance to redeem himself.

Political History
i) The PLO was established by the Arab League in 1964 with Arab support during a summit in Cairo. At that time, the PLO was headed by Mr. Ahmed Al-Shukairy and, since then, has undergone significant changes in its composition, leading bodies, political orientation, and even the locales of its headquarters. The leading bodies of the PLO are the Palestine National Council (PNC), the Central Council, and the Executive Committee. … In 1968, the organization witnessed the beginning of the engagement of the Feda’iyeen organizations (armed struggle organizations), particularly Fateh. In 1969, Yasser Arafat, leader of Fateh, became the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO and, in 1971, he became the General Commander of the Palestine Forces. His name has been synonymous with the Palestinian national movement.

ii) In the 1960s, the PLO's primary base of operations was Jordan. In 1970-71, fighting with the Jordanian army drove the PLO leadership out of the country, forcing it to relocate to Lebanon. When the Lebanese civil war started in 1975, the PLO became a party in the conflict. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the PLO leadership was expelled from the country, relocating once more to Tunisia.

iii) Until 1993, Israel did not acknowledge Palestinian national rights or recognize the Palestinians as an independent party to the conflict. Israel refused to negotiate with the PLO, arguing that it was nothing but a terrorist organization, and insisted on dealing only with Jordan or other Arab states. It rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, insisting that Palestinians should be incorporated into the existing Arab states. This intransigence ended when Israeli representatives entered into secret negotiations with the PLO, which led to the Oslo Declaration of Principles

iv) The Arab defeat in the 1967 war enabled younger, more militant Palestinians to take over the PLO and gain some independence from the Arab regimes.

v) The PLO was granted observer status by the UN General Assembly on 22nd November 1974. In 1976, their status in the UN is further elevated to participating in the Security Council debates but without voting rights. In numerous Resolutions by the General Assembly the PLO was declared the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People". This was also recognised by Israel in the Oslo Accords from 1993. Thus, the PLO plays an important part in negotiations regarding the Palestinian people.

Since the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and the convening of general elections in January 1996 in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, which were preceded by the return of most Palestinian leaders to their homeland, the Authority’s role and responsibilities continue to increase, in some ways at the expense of the PLO. The PNA is the governing body of the Palestinian urban centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while the PLO is the political representative of the Palestinians: those under occupation and those in the diaspora. In the Palestinian territory, as well as outside, Islamic groups remain outside the PLO, which traditionally has not mixed religion and politics.

v) In general, the current Palestinian situation is constantly changing and progressing towards the establishment of a state and the building of a Palestinian democracy. These changes will affect the PLO, but there is no doubt that, at least for some time, the PLO will continue its role as a very important Palestinian structure for the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, in the refugee camps, and throughout the world.”

3. Extremist Elements
(N.b. In its early years, the PLO was one of these)

Fedayeen
This group is made up of young male Palestinian refugees who became guerilla fighters and raided Israel from bases in Gaza Strip and Jordan.

Fatah
This fedayeen organization was founded in the late 1950s by a group of Palestinian students, including Yasser Arafat, in Cairo, Egypt. Fatah means ‘conquest’. It was on friendly terms with Syria, since it found it a good place to launch attacks on Israel, doing so for the first time in January 1965. By 1969, it operated from Jordan.


Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Led by George Habbeash, it was made up of Marxists who wanted revolution throughout the Arab world and believed in liberating Palestine from Israel through terror acts in Europe and US.

Hamas
Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, Hamas is known outside the Palestinian territories for its suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

During the second Intifada, Hamas, along with the Islamic Jihad Movement, spearheaded the violence through the years of the Palestinian uprising.Since then, Hamas has conducted many attacks on Israel, mainly through its military wing - the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. These attacks have included large-scale suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets, the most deadly of which was the bombing of a Netanya hotel on March 27, 2002, in which 30 people were killed and 140 were wounded.

Since the death of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, Hamas's political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the ruling Fatah party took 43.

Hezbollah and Al Queda
(see below)

4. Hardliners on both sides

The Arabs
"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion... We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." -- Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO

Initially,the PLO represents the core of the Arab extremists. The 1968 PLO Charter endorses the use of violence, specifically "armed struggle" against what they call "Zionist imperialism." Article 10 of the Palestinian National Charter states "Commando (Feday’ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.

However,with the approval of the Ten Point Program,Hamas comes into representing the extremists in Palestine. The slogan of Hamas is "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes."Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant states that: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with."

Today,Arab extremism took in a new form:terrorism. The September 11, 2001 attacks by Al-Qaeda became the most devastating in American history, with almost 3,000 people killed. Other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Jemaah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia began the use of more extreme measures such as suicide bombings, aircraft hijacking, kidnapping and assassinations to reach their goals. Of all their goals, mostly revolves around “Eradication of Western imperialism” or “destruction of the state of Israel”.
The Jews
The Jewish element of extremism took the form of Jewish Underground groups before founding of Israel. After the Arab riots of 1920 and 1921, the Jewish created the Haganah to protect their farmers and settlements. Following the Arab 1929 Hebron massacre, the Haganah's role changed dramatically. It became a much larger organization encompassing nearly all the youth and adults in the Jewish settlements, as well as thousands of members from the cities. It also acquired foreign arms and began to develop workshops to create hand grenades and simple military equipment. It went from being an untrained militia to a capable army.

However, the Haganah was mostly defensive in nature, which among other things caused several members to split off and form the militant group Irgun (initially known as Hagana Bet) in 1931. The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British, such as attacking British military headquarters, the King David Hotel, which killed 91 people. Haganah, on the other hand, often preferred restraint. A further split occurred when Avraham Stern left the Irgun to form Lehi, (also known as the Stern Gang) which was much more extreme in its methods. Unlike the Irgun, they refused any co-operation with the British during World War II and even attempted to work with the Nazis to secure European Jewry's emigration to Palestine.

After the formation of the State of Israel, these groups was formally dissolved and integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces on May 31, 1948, with its leaders getting amnesty from prosecution or reprisals as part of the integration.







5. The slow pace of peace process

Introduction

As a result of the Intifada, which is a widespread campaign against the continuing Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, pressure grew within Israel to broaden the peace process. The opportunity to do so was provided in 1991 by the Persian Gulf War. In this war, a multinational coalition of Western and Arab armies expelled Iraq from Kuwait, which Iraq had invaded in 1990.

Despite accomplishments towards peace like the Oslo Accords and the peace agreement that Jordan and Israel signed in 1994, some terrorism and bloodshed continued. Palestinians conducted terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli student opposed to the peace process. Under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the peace process stalled in 1997.

In October 1998 Netanyahu and Arafat signed an accord by which Israel would withdraw from additional West Bank territory in return for Palestinian security measures against terrorist attacks on Israel. The Palestinians also agreed to remove articles that called for Israel's destruction in their national charter. In November, Israel completed the first of three scheduled withdrawals, but froze the implementation of the accord the following month. Israel claimed that the Palestinians had not carried out their part of the accord and placed new conditions on further withdrawals. These developments again stalled the peace process and delayed negotiations on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Slow progress of peace is due to the bitterness of losing 3 wars and the failure of Israel to behave like part of the region. Their outward arrogance and failure to assimilate in the region causes them to act like they are superior and one of the western nations.

For example, you go into someone else’s house and drive them out, afterwards, you act like it’s yours and you boss everyone else around and do not even bother to make friends with the owners of the house.




Camp David Accords, 1978

In 1973, Geneva, there had been meetings to negotiate about ceasefire lines and while they managed disengagements, there was no lasting peace
Syria declined to come, leaving only Egypt, Israel and Jordan
Palestinians were not represented
Carter tried to reignite the failed negotiations…
But nothing till 1977, when Anwar Sadat visited Jerusalem in Nov, which was historic

In September 1978, President Jimmy Carter invited Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to Camp David, a presidential retreat in Maryland. They worked out two agreements: a framework for peace between Egypt and Israel, and a general framework for resolution of the Middle East crisis, i.e. the Palestinian question.

The Camp David Accords was a peace agreement signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on September 17, 1978.

The first agreement formed the basis of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty signed in 1979. The second agreement proposed to grant autonomy to the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and to install a local administration for a five-year interim period, after which the final status of the territories would be negotiated.

Consequences
Only the Egyptian-Israeli part of the Camp David accords was implemented. The Palestinians and other Arab states rejected the autonomy concept because it did not guarantee full Israeli withdrawal from areas captured in 1967 or the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. In any case, Israel sabotaged negotiations by continuing to confiscate Palestinian lands and build new settlements in violation of the commitments Menachem Begin made to Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

The PLO and most of the Arab states denounced it. This was because without Egypt, Arab states unable to fight back. With US aid, able to withstand Arab League Sanctions and Sadat assassination

Although both sides generally abided by the agreements since 1978, in the following years, a common belief emerged in Israel that the peace with Egypt is a "cold peace." There is widespread disappointment with Egypt, which is seen as adhering only to letter and not the spirit of the agreement, particularly with the clauses concerning normalization of relations between the two countries. An additional view is that the Peace agreement was between the Israeli people and Egypt's president Anwar Sadat, rather than with the Egyptian people, who did not necessarily support it in majority.

Evidence supporting this claim is the fact that although Israeli tourists flocked to Egypt, only few Egyptians return the gesture.Futhermore,Egyptians visiting Israel are often ostracized in Egypt, sometimes even receiving death threats; anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitment can still be found in Egyptian media.

According to an Egyptian Government 2006 poll of 1000 Egyptians, 92% of Egyptians still view Israel as an enemy nation.

Failure of Camp David Accords
Under the peace treaty signed in March 1979, Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula, which was partially demilitarized. Israel and Egypt entered into normal diplomatic relations as foreign observers were placed into peninsula to maintain the treaty’s provisions. For its part, Israel achieved peace with what had been its largest enemy at the cost of evacuating Israeli settlers from the Sinai and losing some investment in the area’s infrastructure, such as roads and housing. The Camp David Accords, however, did nothing for Syria and only advanced the Palestinian cause in the vaguest of terms. For these reasons, the Arab League expelled Egypt and the rest of the Arab world widely condemned the accords. In 1981 Sadat was assassinated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists within the Egyptian army. Egypt continued to maintain relations with Israel after Sadat’s death.

Following Camp David, Syria maintained its warlike posture and demanded the unconditional surrender of the Golan Heights, and the PLO continued its terrorist assaults on Israel. In 1982 Israel tried to wipe out the PLO by attacking its bases in Lebanon, which had been plunged into its own civil war in 1975. The assault on the PLO, which Israel called Operation Peace for Galilee, quickly escalated into ground battles in Lebanon and full-scale engagements between the Israeli and Syrian air forces. After a siege on Beirut the PLO leadership evacuated from Lebanon and relocated to Tunisia. Arabs were frustrated that Israel had occupied an Arab capital with little intervention from the rest of the world, and the Palestinians of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip felt more isolated and abandoned than ever. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon by 1985, though it continued to maintain a self-declared security zone inside Lebanon along the Israeli border.




Madrid

This was the first peace talks that included most of the Arab states.

Why now and not at Camp David
1. The Camp David Accords, meant that Egypt seemed to be favouring US aid, and the Arab felt isolated.
2. The Iranian Revolution in 1979. Some Arabs saw Egypt as a counterpoint to this new fundamentalist movement.
3. Uprisings in Gaza and West Bank. It became clear that it was grassroots and so people were unhappy and the residents in the region were clamouring for peace. So even by 1988, Jordan gave up all claims, and allowed the PLO to be seen as the sole representative of Palestinian people.
4. End of Cold War
5. Gulf War. Most Arab states felt Iraq was wrong and made some contribution to the fight but some Arab Leaguers like PLO and Jordan opposed sending aid to help fight Iraq. Many of these were upset at US mobilizing to remove Iraq (illegal occupation) while nothing had been done to remove Israel and enforce Resolution 242. Saddam failed however to truly galvanise the Arab states because many feared and distrusted him. He was no Abdul Nasser
But significantly US prestige in the region did rise, especially with the way Bush handled it. Some Arabs were suspicious of extremism as well. It proved that the US had to work with international organizations or other parties so as to remove the stigma of bias. This is especially important because since 1967, no major Arab-Israeli deal had been done without USA.
For the Arabs – they must increase regional cooperation. For example, some feel that the states that helped USA were the “haves”, the rest were the “have nots”

Madrid
Tried to get all neighbours of Israel but also aims to broaden it to all. Only Egypt is at peace with Israel. Especially with deals about environment, refugees, arms control. Especially when Israel seems hard to negotiate with.
For Egypt this Conference is important because it would show that it was right to start peace even though many felt it had betrayed the Arab Cause.

For the other states:
Jordan: King Hussein wants to make peace with Israel but only with others. Would also want US help for the economy and since many Jordan citizens are Palestinian refugees, any peace that other Arab states agree too will make life easier for him

For the PLO: they seem to be able to accept this, even though they had rejected Camp David. This is especially because of the differing political realities (see above)

Syria: Entering into negotiations even without the Israeli commitment to return Golan Height. Unlike some others had never had negotiations with Israel – so a change. Syria had become increasing isolated in region, especially siding with Iran (due to ideology and historical reasons.

Israel: Has to accept the US invite because if it does not, it looks like it doesn’t want peace. But many are fearful that they will be forced to give up their most prized possessions.

The Oslo Accords, 1993

The weakness of the PLO after the Gulf War, the stalemate in the Washington talks, and fear of radical Islam brought the Rabin government to reverse the long-standing Israeli refusal to negotiate with the PLO. Consequently, Israel initiated secret negotiations in Oslo, Norway directly with PLO representatives who had been excluded from the Madrid and Washington talks. These negotiations produced the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, which was signed in Washington in September 1993.

The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP), were finalized in Oslo, Norway on August 20, 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993, with Yassir Arafat signing for the Palestine Liberation Organization and Shimon Peres signing for the State of Israel.

The Declaration of Principles was based on mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO. It established that Israel would withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, with additional withdrawals from further unspecified areas of the West Bank during a five-year interim period. During this period, the PLO formed a Palestinian Authority (PA) with "self-governing" (i.e. municipal) powers in the areas from which Israeli forces were redeployed.

Ultimate power, however, remained with Israel, which exercised its control by sealing off the Palestinian-governed areas from the rest of the Occupied Territories and from Israel for extended periods of time, an action that devastated a Palestinian economy already weakened by years of occupation. In addition, Israel continued to confiscate land and to build settlements and roads that served to separate Palestinian cities, towns, and villages from each other, exacerbating the fragmentation of the West Bank and Gaza.

In January 1996, elections were held for a Palestinian Legislative Council and for the presidency of the PA, which was won handily by Yasir Arafat. The key issues such as the extent of the territories to be ceded by Israel, the nature of the Palestinian entity to be established, the future of the Israeli settlements and settlers, water rights, the resolution of the refugee problem and the status of Jerusalem were set aside to be discussed in final status talks.

Subsequent agreements in 1994 (Cairo Agreement), 1995 (Oslo II), 1998 (Wye River I), and 1999 (Wye River II) failed to address the fundamental weaknesses of the DoP. The 314 pages of the Oslo II agreement, for instance, extended Palestinian civilian jurisdiction over major population areas, specified the form that Palestinian elections for a legislative council and president would take, and set May 4, 1996, as the deadline to begin final status negotiations that would deal with outstanding issues. It did not, however, indicate the consequences of a failure to meet the May deadline. Nor did Oslo II contain provisions to halt the creation of new "facts on the ground" that would influence the final form of any eventual agreement. The Wye I agreement, which took nineteen months to achieve in part due to the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish Israeli, simply rearticulated how Israel and the Palestinians were to carry out what they had already agreed to in Oslo II and were supposed to have finished more than a year earlier.

Consequences
The PLO accepted this deeply flawed agreement with Israel because it was weak and had little diplomatic support in the Arab world. Both Islamist radicals and local leaders in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip challenged Arafat's leadership. Yet only Arafat had the prestige and national legitimacy to conclude a negotiated agreement with Israel.

The Oslo accords set up a negotiating process without specifying an outcome. The process was supposed to have been completed by May 1999. There were many delays due to Israel's reluctance to relinquish control over the occupied territories, unwillingness to make the kinds of concessions necessary to reach a final status agreement, and periodic outbursts of violence by Palestinian opponents of the Oslo process, especially HAMAS and Jihad. During the Likud's return to power in 1996-99, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu avoided engaging seriously in the Oslo process, which he distrusted and fundamentally opposed.

A Labor-led coalition government led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak came to power in 1999. Barak at first concentrated on reaching a peace agreement with Syria. When he failed to convince the Syrians to sign an agreement that would restore to them less than all the area of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel in 1967, Barak turned his attention to the Palestinian track.

During the protracted interim period of the Oslo process, Israel's Labor and Likud governments built new settlements in the occupied territories, expanded existing settlements and constructed a network of bypass roads to enable Israeli settlers to travel from their settlements to Israel proper without passing through Palestinian-inhabited areas. These projects were understood by most Palestinians as marking out territory that Israel sought to annex in the final settlement. The Oslo accords contained no mechanism to block these unilateral actions or Israel's violations of Palestinian human and civil rights in areas under its control.

Final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were to have begun in mid-1996, but only got underway in earnest in mid-2000. By then, a series of painfully negotiated Israeli interim withdrawals left the Palestinian Authority with direct or partial control of some 40 percent of the West Bank and 65 percent of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian areas were surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory with entry and exit controlled by Israel.

The Palestinians' expectations were not accommodated by the Oslo accords. The Oslo process required the Palestinians to make their principal compromises at the beginning, whereas Israel's principal compromises beyond recognition of the PLO were to be made in the final status talks.

The Accords became the first successful attempt to discuss the necessary elements and conditions for a future Palestinian state.For their efforts, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin , Arafat and Shimon Peres were awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize. However, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, the peace process slowed to a grinding halt.


Deep Flaws in the Oslo Process
Nor is it surprising that Prime Minister Barak, and less directly, President Clinton blamed Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat for the failure of the summit. In remarks following the breakup of the talks, Clinton praised Barak for moving much farther from his initial positions than Arafat during the negotiations. Clinton apparently expected that both parties would meet midway between their opening positions at Camp David. This is a deeply flawed understanding of what can produce a just and stable Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. Clinton's unreasonable expectations stem directly from the structure of the Oslo process and the US alliance with Israel.

All international parties except the United States were excluded from an active role in the negotiations. The 1993 Oslo Declaration of Principles only nominally acknowledged the relevance of UN resolutions 242 and 338 requiring Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. Other UN resolutions--recognizing the Palestinian right to statehood, censuring Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, affirming the Palestinian refugees' right of return and condemning Israel's illegal actions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967--were ignored, as were the relevant principles of international law.
Well-established historical facts detailing Israel's forcible expulsion of many Palestinian refugees in 1948 and 1967 were disregarded.

Camp David, 2000

Between July 11 and 24, under the auspices of President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat met at Camp David in an effort to reach an agreement on permanent status. While they were not able to bridge the gaps and reach an agreement, their negotiations were unprecedented in both scope and detail. Building on the progress achieved at Camp David, the two leaders agreed on the following principles to guide their negotiations:

1) The two sides agreed that the aim of their negotiations is to put an end to decades of conflict and achieve a just and lasting peace.

2) The two sides commit themselves to continue their efforts to conclude an agreement on all permanent status issues as soon as possible.

3) Both sides agree that negotiations based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are the only way to achieve such an agreement and they undertake to create an environment for negotiations free from pressure, intimidation and threats of violence.

4) The two sides understand the importance of avoiding unilateral actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations and that their differences will be resolved only by good faith negotiations.

5) Both sides agree that the United States remains a vital partner in the search for peace and will continue to consult closely with President Clinton and Secretary Albright in the period ahead.

FAILURE OF CAMP DAVID II
The failure of the Palestinian-Israeli-American summit at Camp David did not surprise most Palestinians or those who understand Palestinian opinion on the issues. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's well-publicized "red lines" going into the negotiations delineated a position very far from the minimum that the Palestinian national consensus could accept as a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Barak loudly announced that Israel would not return to its pre-1967 war borders. He sought to annex settlement blocs containing about 80% of the 180,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) to Israel. Like every Israeli leader since 1967, Barak demanded that the Palestinians accept all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital." And Barak insisted that Israel would accept no moral or legal responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. In essence, Barak demanded that the Palestinians give their blessing to Israel's many violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and dozens of UN resolutions since 1967--most notably the confiscation of land for civilian purposes, settling civilians in occupied territories, the unilateral and internationally unrecognized annexation of East Jerusalem and the installation of some 175,000 Jewish settlers there.

The distance between the two parties, especially on the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, made it impossible to reach an agreement at the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000. Although Barak offered a far more extensive Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank than any other Israeli leader had publicly considered, he insisted on maintaining Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Palestinians and to most of the Muslim world. Arafat left Camp David with enhanced stature among his constituents because he did not yield to American and Israeli pressure. Barak returned home to face political crisis within his own government, including the abandonment of coalition partners who felt he had offered the Palestinians too much.

However, the Israeli taboo on discussing the future of Jerusalem was broken. Many Israelis began to realize for the first time that they might never achieve peace if they insisted on imposing their terms on the Palestinians.







6. INCREASE IN US/USSR INFLUENCE IN THE REGION

United States

In March 1957, the new instrument of American policy became the Eisenhower Doctrine. By its terms, he president was authorized to extend economic and military assistance, including troops to any Middle Eastern nation that requested it against the threat of international communism. However, no Arab country except Libya and Lebanon was eager the embrace the doctrine. The United States was seen as attempting to weaken Arab unity by insisting Arab countries line up on one side or the other in the Cold War. Even the ‘allied’ Saudis did not endorse the doctrine. Nor did King Hussein, even though the United States rushed the Six Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and extended 10 million in financial assistance to Jordon when the king quashed a Nasser-supported communist plot against the monarchy in 1957.

United States Relations with Israel and Palestinians

President Harry Truman declared recognition of Israel on May 15, 1948, minutes prior to Israeli independence was declared. After the Second War World did the US push for the settlement of the many Jewish refugees. Past Middle Eastern interests of the US include containing the USSR expansion into it, ensuring industrialized countries access to petrol sources there, fostering democracy’s growth, maintaining communications and trade and ensuring Israel’s security.

Both US and Israel agreed that US should have the predominant role as a peace-maker, however, the bulk of Israelis wanted US to support only pro-Israeli positions. Past US arms transfers to Arab nations are also causing the friction in Israeli-US relations.

The US have always regarded the Palestinians as one of the problems to be solved in the Arab-Israeli dispute, rather then participants of the peace progress, not until recently that is. The series of terrorist attacks added the label ‘terrorist’ to Palestinian’s ‘refugee’ image. President Jimmy Carter shifted this perception in 1977 when he mentioned that the Palestinians deserve a homeland. In 1975, Secretary of State to President Gerald Ford Henry Kissinger told ensured Israel that the US will not negotiate with PLO unless they accepted the UN resolutions, and accepted Israel, rejecting terrorism in the process.

However, PLO head Yasser Arafat agreed and the US opened dialogues in 1988. The talks were maintained until 1990 when President Bush Senior ended it on accounts that PLO did not denounce terror attacks in Tel Aviv in 1990.




United Nations

Throughout the twentieth century, various efforts were made to arbitrate the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis. The United Nations was heavily involved in the years following its vote to partition Palestine. It created the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to take responsibility for Palestinian refugees, sent mediators to the region throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and passed dozens of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions calling for cease-fires, condemning aggressive actions by each of the parties, and suggesting approaches for conflict resolution.

In recent decades, the United States has attempted to take a leading role in managing the conflict and has worked to exclude the United Nations from participation. The close relationship between Israel and the United States has hampered the ability of the United States to serve as a neutral mediator, however. Furthermore, for 13 years, the United States refused to acknowledge or deal officially with the PLO because of a promise the United States made to Israel in 1975:

The United States will continue to adhere to its present policy with respect to the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], whereby it will not recognize or negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization so long as the Palestine Liberation Organization does not recognize Israel's right to exist and does not accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The two UN Security Council resolutions referred to-242 and 338-marked the end of the June 1967 and October 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, respectively. Palestinians maintained these resolutions were an inadequate basis for negotiation because, among other issues, they did not address Palestinian demands for self-determination, referring instead only to a "settlement of the refugee problem." Later, in 1984, Congress wrote the 1975 pledge into law and added that the PLO had to renounce the use of terrorism before there would be any formal diplomatic discussions between the two parties. In the absence of relations with the PLO, the United States was forced to rely on other Arab states to represent Palestinian interests; a task these countries did poorly and without enthusiasm. After Arafat's conciliatory statements in December 1988, the United States opened direct contacts with the PLO.

After the Gulf War in 1991, Palestinians were livid, asking why the Iraqi occupation was instantly condemned while Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands was ignored and, in the case of the United States, implicitly supported through U.S. economic and military assistance to Israel. In order to build a broad coalition against Iraq-one that included a number of Arab states-the United States committed itself to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once the war ended. These concluded with the major breakthrough of the Madrid Conference.

Unexpectedly, at the end of August 1993, the Israeli government and the PLO announced they had been meeting secretly in Norway and had reached an interim agreement for Palestinian self-government. The Declaration of Principles (DoP), signed in September, outlined a process for transforming the nature of the Israeli occupation but left numerous issues unresolved, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the disposition of Israeli settlements, security arrangements, and final borders between Israel and a Palestinian state.

With Palestinian-Israeli negotiations stalled and the final status talks not yet begun, U.S. President Bill Clinton called a summit at Camp David in July 2000.

USSR

Although the USSR was the second country to recognize officially Israel’s creation in 1948, Moscow found it expedient to side against Israel. Calling Israel the linchpin of Western imperialism in the Middle East, Moscow long had sought to forge a unified anti-imperialist Arab bloc under Soviet leadership. By siding with the Arab cause, the Soviet Union gained entry into the Middle East, cultivated Arab regimes of all ideological stripes undermined the U.S. position in the Arab world by isolating it as Israel’s chief backer, strengthened radical anti-Western forces. It also acquired access to several bases, namely the port of Tartus in Syria and South Yemen’s ports in Aden and the island of Socotra. Indeed, the Soviet Union was the chief beneficiary of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This interminable struggle enabled Moscow to build patron-client relationships with Arab states that otherwise would have little need for a Soviet connection, given the lackluster appeal of Soviet ideology, technology, and economic assistance. By fueling the Arab-Israeli arms race, Moscow was able to tap its principal source of national power - military strength.

A watershed event in Soviet Middle East policy was the September 1955 200 million Czech arms transfer to Egypt, orchestrated by Moscow. It was Moscow’s first military commitment to an Arab state. Subsequent arms deals were arranged with Syria (1956), Yemen (1956), Afghanistan (1956) and Iraq (1958).

In exchange for arms the Soviets gained political influence and strategic advantage through military cooperation and access to Arab military facilities.
Moscow signed classic long-term friendship and cooperation treaties with Egypt in 1971, Iraq in 1972, Somalia in 1974, Ethiopia in 1978, Afghanistan in 1978, South Yemen in 1979, and Syria in 1980. Experts were also sent in to help the Arabs.