The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Politics Essay

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Politics EssayAfter to a greater extent than 50 old age of fight, alarmism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and paradise rebriny as far from a nonaggressive settlement as ever. The built-in oculus Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to moot the boiling advert, a potent mixture of religious extremism, ( Judaic, Christian and Islamic), flux with oil and munitions.This paper is an effort to trace the history of this age doddering date and analyse the viability of interthemely suggested rootages. Owing to their history, personnel casualty back at least 5000 long time in time, the paper only throws light on the competitiveness, post 19th century. And this too, only a cursory overview of a timeline, quite than a detailed description.The paper in any case attempts to find the b atomic number 53s of literary argument between the devil mints, clearly laying erupt the issues and problems along with the aim to resolve them.Fin every(prenominal)y, the paper analyses the two mainstream effects suggested for re awaycome of this conflict, being the Two- nominate theory and the Bi-National commonwealth theory. IR theories of Realism and Liberalism be utilise to b passagewayly analyse these two stems applicability in the firearmicular conflict. The practical difficulties in the inhabiting political diaspora is highlighted to finally decide the viability.The limitations of the paper is that the complex issues abstr economic consumption do non give enough leeway to say distinctly that hotshot origin is the right stem and the another(prenominal), wrong. Also, though neutral t one(a)s moderate been imbibed through off the paper, a humanistic tendency of bias to contendds the Palestinian cause seeps in, albeit subconsciously.IntroductionThe Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the early 20th century. The conflict is wide-rangi ng, and the term is overly used in reference to the ear remainr bods of the analogous conflict, between the Zionist yishuv and the Arab universe of discourse living in heaven infra Ottoman and then British rule. It forms part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The remaining key issues atomic number 18 mutual recognition, strands, security, urine rights, go for of capital of Israel, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of app bent movement and finding a re etymon to the refugee question. The force play going from the conflict has prompted world-wide actions, as well as other security and human rights concerns, twain deep down and between both situations, and internationally. In summation, the power has curbed expansion of tourism in the region, which is full of historic and religious sites that be of interest to many quite a little around the world. more attempts have been made to broker a two- render solution, involving the substructure of an independent Pal estinian call down alongside an independent Jewish state or next to the assert of Israel (after Israels establishment in 1948). In 2007 a major(ip)ity of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a repress of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a intend of resolving the conflict. Moreover, a considerable majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians ask for an independent state as honourable, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the westernmost bevel and Gaza comb as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution. However, at that place are significant field of studys of disagreement over the hurl of any final agreement and withal regarding the level of credibility all(prenominal) side sees in the other in upholding raw material commitments.Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist non only between Israelis and Palestinians, overly also indoors each society. A hallmark of the conflict has been the level of violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. Fighting has been conducted by regular armies, paramilitary groups, terror cells and individuals. Casualties have not been restricted to the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides. There are prominent international actors involved in the conflict.This paper details the history of the conflict, giving a prospect through a timeline, rather than a detailed description. It also outlines the basic issues involved in the conflict and why their resolution is not spread over walk. The two solutions proposed as a solution to the conflict is also analysed in depth, with reference to theoretical concepts of substantialism and liberalism in IR. The viability of these solutions are dealt with, in the circulating(prenominal) political scene, though with less insight into the actual political happenings. news report of the conflictThe origins of the heaven problem as an international issue lie in so farts occurring towards the end of the First World War. These neverthelessts led to a partnership of Nations decision to place Palestine below the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the empowerments System adopted by the League. In teaching, the Mandate was smashedt to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the Leagues Covenant, but in situation the Mandates historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.The decision on the Mandate did not scoop into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenants requirements that the wishes of these communities must be a bar seduceer consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. This assumed special significance because, intimately five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British governing body had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leading had pressed a guide of historical connection since their ancestors had conk outd in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the Diaspora.1During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization tended to pander the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the estate for virtually the two preceding millennia2, felt up this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war.The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close. By 1947, largely through this massive immigration, the Jewish population reached a substantial 33% and owned about 6% of the land. nettly, in 1947 the joined Nations decided to intervene. As per the Resolution 1813, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state despite the fact that this group represented only about 33% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land. capital of Israel was to have been an international city shared by all peoples of the region. The Zionist movement embraced the aim whereas the Palestine (and other neighbouring Arab nations) saw the plan as extremely unfair and rejected it. This followed the first war which was to fertilize the seeds of prospective conflicts.The Arab League supported the Arab struggle by forming the volunteer establish Arab Liberation Army, suppor ting the Palestinian Arab Army of the Holy War. On the Jewish side, the civil war was managed by the major underground militias the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi, strengthened by numerous Jewish veterans of World War II and foreign volunteers. By spring 1948, it was already clear that the Arab forces were nearing a total collapse, while Yishuv forces gained more and more territory, creating a large scale refugee problem of Palestinian Arabs.4 familiar support to the Palestinian Arabs throughout the Arab world led to sporadic violence against Jewish communities of Middle East and North Africa, creating an opposite refugee wave.Following the result of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab League decided to intervene on behalf of Palestinian Arabs, marching their forces into former British Palestine, number one the main phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The overall fighting, leading to around 15,000 casualties, resulted in contain fire and cease-fire agreeme nts of 1949, with Israel holding much of the former Mandate territory, Jordan occupying and by and by annexing the West bank building and Egypt taking over the Gaza Strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the Arab League on 22 September 1948. dapple the Jewish people were successful in creating their homeland, there was no Palestine and no internationalization of capital of Israel, either. In 1948 for example, Palestinians were driven out of the new Israel into refugee camps in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other regions. At least 750,000 people are said to have been driven out (or ethnically cleansed, as some have described it).5It should be remark that many Jews were also expelled from surrounding Arab countries. Zionist organizations and even some Arab nations also encouraged many Jews to immigrate to Israel. As with Palestinians, expelled Jews often had their land and/or bank accounts and other property seized.In 1956, Britain, France and Israel invaded the Sin ai Peninsula after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal fearing the outrage of a major economic trading route entry point for the West to the rest of the Middle East. While Egypt was defeated, international pressure coerce the withdrawal of the invading forces.6In 1967, Israel simultaneously attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a pre-emptive absorb against the Arab troops along its bulwarks. Israel captured key pieces of land, such as the strategical Golan high gear to the north on the border with Syria, to the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza strip from Egypt. In fact, Israel more than doubled its size in the six days that this war took place. Since then, negotiations have been around returning land to pre-1967 states, as required by international law and UN resolutions. flush today, the Palestine Liberation Organisation calls for a two state solution based on the pre Six twenty-four hours War borders.In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kip pur to attempt to regain the land lost in the Six Day War, but failed. This confrontation is also known as the Yom Kippur War.In 1978, the Camp David accords were gestural between Israel, Egypt and the US, and Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in return for peace between them. To the US and Israel, this was a great achievement Egypt was obviously not to be underestimated in its capabilities, so the best thing would be to experience it is an ally, not an adversary.In 1978, payable to rising Hezbollah attacks from South Lebanon, where many Palestinian refugees tranquilize were, Israel attacked and invaded Lebanon. In 1982, Israel went as far up Lebanon as Beirut, as bally(a) exchanges followed between Israeli attempts to bomb Yasser Arafats PLO locations, and Hezbollah retaliations. The infamous Shabra and Shatila massacre was carried out during this war. In 1985, Israel declared a strip of South Lebanon to be a Security Zone (not recognized by the UN). Many civili ans were killed on both sides. Israeli forces were accused of massacres on many occasions. After 22 years, Israel withdrew in May 2000. One of the leading Israeli military personnel was the future Israel Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.In the late 1980s came the Palestinian uprising-the Intifada. While there was much of a non-violence movement initially, the mainstream media concentrated on the violence. Young Palestinians confronted Israeli troops with nothing more than sling shots and stones. Thousands were killed by the Israeli military. Many self-destruction activists killed Israeli soldiers and caused other damage. Many innocent civilians were killed on both sides.1993 saw the Oslo Peace Accord, whereby Israel recognized the PLO and gave them particular(a) autonomy in return for peace and an end to Palestinian claims on Israeli territory. With the sign language of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the PLO denounced violence and recognised the UN Security Council Resolution 242, thereby recognising the right of Israel to exist.In 1994, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, ending twenty seven years of occupation. They were replaced by a Palestinian police force.In April 1996, Israeli forces bombed Lebanon for 17 days, with Hezbollah retaliating by firing upon populated areas of Northern Israel. Israel also shelled a UN shelter killing about 100 out of 800 civilians sheltering there.The above however gives a broad outline of the conflict, and a more comprehensive epitome of the underlying cause and various other issues couldnt be provided here due to the call of brevity.The Palestine Problem and the need for a SolutionAs the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational terrorists who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is th at the Palestinians have a real grievance their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their concur and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes on both sides inevitably follow from this original injustice.Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre in which the Irgun and Lehi soldiers carried out the slaughter of innocent villagers including women and children, or whether it is the felo-de-se bombings perpetrated on Israeli civilians and soldiers by Palestine based terrorist groups, both sides have used a previous(prenominal) occurrences as justifications for a fresh act of violence. After decades of bloodshed, there seems to be no right or wrong anymore. And misery hasnt ceased to exist for the innocent.The major issues that dominate the dialogues on the problem areRefugeesAbout 726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in 1948 in the war that followed the creation of Israel, and additional Palestinians fled in 1967. There are now about 4 million Palestinian refugees. Many of them die in crowded refugee camps in poor conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Palestinians demand that these refugees should have the right to return to their homes in Israel under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israelis note that an almost equal number of Jews fled Arab lands to Israel in 1948. Israelis oppose return of the refugees because that would create an Arab Palestinian majority and would perplex an end to Israel as a Jewish state. Most Palestinian groups, including the Fateh, agree, and spread outly proclaim that resolution of the refugee issue by granting right of return would mean the end of Israel.Israeli SettlementsOne of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, self-governing states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence and continuing growth of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called settlements) on land long recognized by the Uni ted Nations as part of Palestine. patronage a repeated international condemnation, the population of these settlements, which periodly number 121, has bighearted by an average of 5% annually since 2001. That compares to an average growth of just 1.8% for the population of Israel proper. Israel has repeatedly refused to dismantle these settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, and has repeatedly fudged and violated various moratoriums on new growth.Palestinian StateOriginally formed to regain all of Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs, the Palestine Liberation Organization signalled that it would accept a two state solution in 1988. The Oslo accords were supposed to have led to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but continued Israeli settlement and Palestinian violence and incitement degenerated into open conflict in September 2000. Mainstream Palestinians demand a state in the West Bank and Gaza. Right wing Israelis are opposed to creating a state, becaus e, they claim, it would be a base for terror groups. In final status negotiations, the Israeli government agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state with limited fit over its borders and resources a state minus.Palestinian terrorAlmost all Palestinian groups were founded with the declared aim of destroying Israel by violence, and had a history of terrorist activities. Only the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) has renounced this aim officially. In 1993, the PLO sign the Oslo Declaration of Principles, renouncing violence and agreeing to honour UN SC Resolution 242, which implicitly recognizes the right of Israel to exist. In return, Israel allowed the PLO to enter the West Bank and Gaza strip, and Palestinians gained autonomous control of most of the population of these areas. Extremist Palestinian groups that objected to the agreements began a campaign of ambushes and suicide bombings against Israel. The Palestine National Authority claimed they could not control the diss ident groups. Final status negotiations faltered in September 2000.Israeli RepressionIsrael responded to Palestinian violence at the beginning of the Oslo process by limiting the flow of Palestinian workers to Israel to prevent infiltration of terrorists, and by strict checks at border checkpoints. The border closing drastically reduced the Palestinian standard of living. Palestinians who did come to work were often subjected to humiliating searches and very long waits at checkpoints. Following terror attacks at the checkpoints, nervous IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers sometimes were too quick to open fire on suspicious vehicles, killing innocent civilians. Checkpoints around Jerusalem made it difficult for Palestinians to get to work in Jerusalem and to act between Palestinian towns. The IDF has killed over 3,500 Palestinians7, demolished houses and uprooted olive groves. After a recent IDF study showed that the demolitions do not deter suicide bombings, demolitions of the hou ses of suicide bombers were discontinued, but houses are still demolished for other reasons. In addition to measures taken to ensure security, Israeli extremist settlers have harassed Palestinians, sunk property, uprooted olive trees and killed several Palestinians in doubtful circumstances. The perpetrators are rarely set and almost never prosecuted.Israeli SecurityThe area of Israel within its pre-1967 armistice borders is slightly less than 8,000 square miles. The distance from Tel Aviv to the green line border of Israel (West Bank) is about 11 miles. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other Israeli cities are within artillery range of any Palestinian state. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized. The West Bank has enormous strategic importance to any country wishing to invade Israel. Israel therefore insists on guarantees that the Palestinian state would not allow a foreign army to enter its borders, and has insisted on bases within the We st Bank.WaterThe land has always had a scarcity of water. The Israel National Water Carrier has made practicable a high population density and standard of living.8The carrier pumps water from the Sea of Galilee and carries it to areas in the center and south of Israel as well as for Palestinian areas. In one day it delivers the volume of water used in all of 1948, but it is not enough.9The aquifers that supply Israels profound area lie in the West Bank. The Jordan river flows through territory that would be part of Palestine. Both sides need water for survival and development and want to ensure an adequate water supply from the limited resources available. Israel has reserved for its own use a large percentage of the water in West Bank aquifersThe Two State SolutionThe current solution for Israel and Palestine suggests that Palestinians ought to have their own state, separate from Israel. In this way a Two-State solution baron be reached. The method by which such a solution coul d be implemented involves a technical division of land with pariess, earth mounds, road blocks and fences. This chapter discusses the alleged(prenominal) practical limitations of a Two-State solution. Notably it questions whether a Palestinian State is a workable option.Israel and Palestine combined are no larger than South Africas Western Cape Province and yet, for such a broken amount of land, the Two-State solution seeks the establishment of a Palestinian state, separate from the current Israeli state. Palestine itself is not one land mass. It is currently split into two territories named the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Gaza has a western coastline on the Mediterranean Sea and shares borders with Israel and Egypt. Gaza is a relatively small territory, merely 45 kilometres in length. The West Bank is landlocked, sharing borders with Israel and Jordan. Although the West Bank is marginally larger than Gaza, it is not easy to freely access the territory as it is surround by a 723km concrete wall, 6-9 metres high in most places. The wall has been built by Israel to separate Israel from the Palestinian West Bank. But the wall does not follow the internationally recognised border between Israel and the West Bank. Rather, it cuts into the West Bank annexing 13% of the territory for Israel.The wall is characteristic of Israels selfishness in claiming Palestinian land. despite the low percentage of land annexed by the wall, this accord of land is, nonetheless, highly fertile and densely populated mostly by Palestinian farmers. The livelihood of these farmers depends on the productivity of their land. Palestinians whose land has been annexed by Israel live in a so-called seam geographical partition off between the internationally recognised Israeli-West Bank border and the wall. These Palestinians who live in the seam zone are known as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). By definition they are person who have been forced to flee their homes as a res ult of armed conflict, violence, violations of human rights or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border.10Palestinians whose land falls in the seam zone are only permitted access to their farmlands during designated hours with a required permit. If a viable Palestinian state is to be created, the status of these IDPs has to be resolved, either by Israel offering financial compensation for appropriating Palestinian land, or by piteous the wall and thereby allowing Palestinian landowners to return. Both of these solutions are technical in nature and are indicative of the so-called rational approach taken by Israeli policymakers.The vexing nature of how to divide Israel and Palestine comes without even discussing Jerusalem, a city which is contested by Israelis and Palestinians. Jerusalem is home to an estimated 250,000 Palestinians and 200,000 Jews. While Israel claims Jerusalem to be its official capital, the international community t reats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Also, the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israels capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. Palestinians seek to secure a portion of the city as the political capital of a Palestinian State. Israel is, however, unwilling to relinquish any part of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital.So, the obstacles faced by policymakers favouring a Two-State solution are obstacles of control which areas are to be controlled by Palestinians and which areas are to be controlled by Israelis. In other words, the question for those concerned with the Two-State solution is how to delineate land which can be controlled by the state. State control over territory is a central feature of the Two-State solution and. This configuration of control is termed self-governingty.Policymakers seek to divide Israel and Palestine into two separate states so that each may exercise supreme authority o ver its territory, without hitch from the other. The means by which mutual non-interference is achieved between states is through a principle of so-called recognition. The term itself requires further explanation, in its relevance to the teaching and praxis of IR. For IR theorists, recognition is commonly used to describe how states acknowledge one another. The most fundamental aspect of inter-state recognition is respect for each states sovereignty. The Two-State solution hinges on Israelis and Palestinians recognising each other as sovereign entities and thereby not interfering with one anothers domestic affairs.To problematize the notion of interstate recognition it is reclaimable to consider Hegels views. Discussing the relationship between two individuals, a Lord and a Bondsman, he says, Each sees the other, and therefore also does what it does only in so far as the other does the same. Action by one side only would be useless because what is to happen can only be brought ab out by both They recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.11There is a perception that Jewish sovereignty is under brat due to the low ratio of Jews to Arabs in the Middle-East. So, in order to cheer the identity of this small Jewish population, Jews are insulated within their own sovereign state Israel. Non-Jews living within Israel are viewed as a threat. The defense of Jewish sovereignty would explain why there are limited employment opportunities for Arab workers in Israel and why Arabs receive different education to Jews. Despite the fact that they share territory, it is evident that Israelis and Palestinians believe themselves to be separate nations and thence deserving of separate sovereign states. So the Two-State solution is seen as the so-called rational end for Israelis and Palestinians. Today, the two-state solution is widely accepted among Israelis and Palestinians and around the world.Even elements of the Israeli right are now resigned to the estab lishment of a Palestinian state, although their conception of the nature of that state is not acceptable to Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, even elements of the Hamas leadership have hinted that they would go along with a two-state solution if negotiated by Fatah leaders and endorsed by the public, as long as they did not renounce their ideological principles.However, a strong view is that incomp permite side would be able to agree to a division that yielded the temple Mount to the other side. As an attempt to break the stalemate, U.S. President visiting card Clinton proposed dividing sovereignty of the site vertically the ground and area below climax under Israeli sovereignty, while that above the ground (i.e. the Haram al-Sharif containing the Dome of the sway and al-Aqsa Mosque) would be under Palestinian sovereignty. A similar nous was suggested for tunnels and princely roads connecting communities. In the end neither side accepted the concept.The main point on whi ch the two-state solution formula differs from those for an independent Palestinian state is that it calls for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. To achieve a two-state solution, the negotiations must mention and resolve a number of core issues, including the borders of the Palestinian state, the citizenship of the new Palestinian state, the status of Palestinian refugees outside the final borders, and the status of Arab citizens of present-day Israel, besides the future of East Jerusalem.The Two-State Solution An analysis using IR theoriesIsraelis and Palestinians are clearly interspersed, yet the Two-State solution seeks to divide them into sovereign states. We have seen that the idea of sovereignty underpins the Two-State solution based on the distinct nationalities of Israelis and Palestinians. Sovereignty also forms the core of two IR perspectives that are used in the castigate Realism and Liberalism.This is not to say that that Realism and Libe ralism are the only IR theories that can be used to explain the Two-State solution. Rather, Realism and Liberalism are two of the foundational theories. Therefore it is useful to discuss the Two-State solution from the perspective of Realism and Liberalism. First, let us analyse the Two-State solution through the prism of Realism, the school of ideal which has been given the greatest primacy in IR.RealismRealists believe that there is no moral standard which dictates how states should behave toward one another. The lack of an overriding honest code to structure interstate behaviour is known as so-called anarchy.12For Realists, power dictates how states interact with one another. Because power relations are central to a Realist understanding of the international arena, states are sceptical of trust. So, instead of bank one another states choose their alliances based on one anothers strategic value in so-called self-interested behaviour. Selfishness means that interstate warfare is inevitable. In the Realist understanding, the international arena is brutal and the only way to deter actors from going to war is if the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. So, Realists reduce human interests to strategies or games, advocating that actors constantly seek to maximize their utility through negotiations, trade-offs and alliances.Realist Theory reduces the Israeli-Palestinian zygomorphous relationship to a power squabble, as each side attempts to gain the ascendency. In these circumstances relations become a ping-pong suit of provocation and conflict is inevitable. For example, a Palestinian suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv market might be reciprocated by an Israeli insight into the bombers West Bank village. Even cumulative small actions by one side can lead to one large action from the other for example, when numerous Qassam rockets, fired into Israel by Palestinian militants, result in an Israeli military offensive. Presumably then, in the Realist understanding , peace is achieved when the costs of going to war outweigh the benefits of doing so. However, a cost-benefit analysis of going to war can