Peace cannot be built on crumbling foundations

The recent violence in Palestinian territory shows no sign of abating. A two-week Israeli offensive in the Gaza strip has led to numerous civilian casualties and much damage. However, this was surpassed by the fierce Israeli bombardment of Lebanon over the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. It has thrown the region into further crisis and turmoil, threatening to make all-out war a reality.

All this makes the key question of whether true peace can be sought in the Holy lands as murky as ever.

Although peace negotiations over the past decade or so have had positive gestures from both sides superficially, in truth progression has been slow, cyclic and fraught with difficulties and bloodshed. The issue of the Palestinian struggle has gripped the Middle East and dominated the agenda of neighbouring Arab countries.

Many historical junctures have been achieved without really gaining the adequate agreement and long-term harmony required for a lasting peace. Even the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PA) granting some autonomy to Palestinians has left them bickering about strategy, diplomatic relationships and national direction.

After all, decades of war and bloodshed leading to much displacement, mourning and suffering, would hardly lead to national agreement among all Palestinians overnight. This, coupled with the persistent involvement and interference of many of the neighbouring Arab countries each with their own stance on the conflict and their own relationship with Israel, has caused a deep split in the region.

The death of the much heralded leader, Yasser Arafat, sent shockwaves through the occupied lands. Yasser Arafat was the figure that bonded so many sides and was the personification of the Palestinian struggle. However, since his death, Palestinian politics has been incoherent with splits between rival factions. The surprise victory by Hamas may have aroused the West but it also created tensions with its rival faction - Fatah.

Israel has ruled out any negotiations with the Hamas-led Palestinian Government, while withholding millions in custom payments, labelling the militant group a “terrorist bloody organisation” and rejecting claims about the use of disproportionate force against both Lebanon and the occupied territories.

However, if the situation in Gaza itself is tense, the conflict brewing between Lebanon and Hezbollah militia could prove that an all-out war between Jews and Arabs could strike once again. The constant flexing of their military muscle will only alienate Israel further, and Israel’s retaliatory attacks on Lebanon in particular have been fierce and more than just a defensive right. It appears that unfortunately for the Middle East, history is often repeating without progress and repentance.

Background of hostilities

The struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one of the most capricious and notorious of all the worlds’ conflicts. The historical claim to lands between the Eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordanian river has led to centuries of hostilities, bloodshed and bitterness and is still evident today, with different nations fighting for the prized iconic lands.

For the much-persecuted Jewish people, the return to the land of their forefathers after years of displacement has not been without perils. Security and peace have been non-existent as hostile neighbours have sought to nullify their gains.

For the Palestinians on the other hand, the last century has brought colonisation, occupations and much displacement, followed by a difficult and bloody battle for self-determination and co-existence with a nation heralded by many with anger and bitterness.

Since the revolt in 70AD against Roman rule, the dispersion of the Jewish people has been commonplace and highlighted by recurrent European anti-Semitism. Jewish fortunes changed with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where the British Government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, a British mandate at the time.

The Zionist movement of the 1920s and 1930s resulted in hundreds of thousands of Jews immigrating en masse to Palestine, inevitably provoking unrest in the Arab community.

In 1947 a UN special committee proposed a split of territory between Jews and Palestinians and on May 14, 1948, known as “al-Nakba” or Catastrophe by Palestinians, the first Jewish state was proclaimed since Judea more than a millennium ago.

In a sign of what was to ensue, only a day after this declaration of statehood, Arab armies from Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Syria invaded, but without success.

Since then neighbouring states have raced to form an Arab response to the creation of Israel. Palestinians essentially became onlookers, as the battle became one between Jews and Arab Muslims. The territories in question only made up of about 25 per cent of the British Mandate Palestine, with the majority of the lands forming what is now modern-day Jordan. However, it was the sudden flock of Jewish migrants with Western support and the forcible displacement of Palestinians that enraged Arabs.

In 1964, with Arab government support, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was born, although it was never a truely independent body until the arrival of Arafat, leader of the notorious Fatah organisation, in 1969. Successive attempts to gain territory by neighbouring states only led to further frustration and in 1967 the infamous Six-Day War resulted in Israel doubling the land under their control.

This age of optimism for Israel left Arab states more fractured - as each state differed in its approach to Israel and in dealing with many more thousands of Palestinian refugees. As Arabs states wielded economic clout by enforcing trade embargos, Israel became more dependent on US military and diplomatic support, which in turn made peace more difficult.

A milestone came in 1974 with Yasser Arafat’s first dramatic appearance at the European Union and his famous remark, “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun”.

But perhaps, international attention was only really swayed by a dramatic Intifada - or uprising - in 1987 resulting in civil disobedience and graphic images of violence for the next five years.

The Palestinian National Council (a government-in-exile) in 1988 renounced terrorism and voted to accept a “two-state” solution, based on the 1947 UN partition resolution and pre-1967 territorial gains of Israel. But like much in the region’s recent history, total agreement on this charter never had cross-national support.

The election of Yitzhak Rabin in 1992 resulted in frenzied Israeli-Arab peacemaking, culminated in the Declaration of Principles and a historic first handshake between Rabin and Arafat.

The birth of the Palestinian National Authority soon followed in 1994, with Arafat elected president in 1996. However, disagreements both internally and with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state, the status of Jewish settlements, Jerusalem and the thousands of refugees, soon halted gains.

Amid a background of tensions, suicide bombings and reprisal attacks, peace talks were always likely to be laborious and tentative.

In 2000, in what was seen as a highly provocative and symbolic move, Ariel Sharon visited the al-Aqsa complex. Fury and demonstrations soon followed, quickly developing into what became known as the al-Aqsa intifada.

In 2002, Israeli retaliation resulted in the reoccupation of almost all the West Bank, as Arafat’s compound in Ramallah was practically left in ruins.

As Israel justified its actions by claiming it was destroying terrorist infrastructure, reprisals, as in much of this conflict, only made matters worse. Arafat was under heavy pressure to reign in militants, however in the emotional and passionate climate, this was nearly impossible, making peace ever-more distant.

The pressures facing the present PA leader, Mahmoud Abbas, are hardly better, with the paradox of discussions around the table and reprisals on the streets.

The rise of tension in Palestine

The death of Arafat left the Palestinian struggle in uncertainty, which increased when Hamas came to power. Hamas, labelled a terrorist organisation by the EU and US, has been under global pressure, in particular from financial donors, to renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist. So far Hamas has refused a move that for them represents the acceptance of the occupation of Palestinian land.

Furthermore, before any peace or settlement can ensue with Israel, the Palestinians must themselves strike an accord. Fatah and Hamas, the two parties that dominate Palestinian politics, differ in fundamental areas.

Fatah, at the head of the Palestinian national movement since the 1950s, after recognising Israel’s right to exist, made strides towards a two-state solution under the Oslo peace accords. However, this progress was frustrated by its defeat in the elections, raising fears it would use military and political power to sustain its influence.

Hamas, an Islamist movement is solely aimed at the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestine Islamic state in its entirety. However, under fierce economic and political pressure, and heavy bombardment in recent weeks, it may have no choice but to compromise on its charter to save a humanitarian crisis. It has shown positive, albeit half-hearted, gestures towards a future truce.

With both sides holding formidable militias, disagreement over the future position of Palestine and the strategy to deal with a co-existence with the Israelis, led to fighting on the streets and fears of a Palestinian civil war.

A two-state solution

Clearly the current tactics of the Israelis and Palestinians will make peace a near impossibility. Reprisal and military attacks only create a chain of violence that gradually increases in intensity as the attacks get bolder each time. Furthermore, without compromise and a united front on each side, peace will be built on crumbling foundations that a few Jewish or Islamic fundamentalists could easily destroy.

Even a much-heralded two-state solution may not function: cross-border military incursions and terrorist attacks will destroy any dreams of sovereign co-existence within days, with any solution undoubtedly unable to satisfy every party, especially in light of a bitter and passionate regional climate. However, Arabs and Jews lived side-by-side in these lands in the past and perhaps only a future co-existence under one state will bring true long-term peace, however delusional in the current climate.

This would make the task of peace and security a joint responsibility and make both the Jews and Arabs responsible for the action of any inhabitant, despite nationality. In the eyes of the international community and particularly the much prejudiced US administration, they would receive equal financial assistance and equal significance and attention. However, the lands are far too symbolic just to focus on the harmony of the Jews and Palestinians. It’s about greater interference and the clash of civilisations with the Muslims on the one side and the US and Western powers on the other.

Conclusion

One of the most enduring and explosive conflicts in history refuses to dwindle. It is clear that a mixture of international pressure and involvement, constant interference by Arab neighbours and successive US administrations and even disagreement and infighting between Palestinians, has only served to make a future peace settlement more strenuous and intense than ever.

The Palestinian struggle to date has had much anger and bloodshed but without long-term compromise or a realisation that co-existence, in whatever form, is the only way forward. Reprisal attacks and military incursions by Israelis and subsequent suicide bombings and retaliatory attacks by Palestinians could continue for decades more.

A balanced solution is the key: the Jews have the right to statehood as do the Palestinians, but with self-determination. However, the same Arab countries have not batted an eyelid at the claim of 35 million Kurds for independence over a greater patch of land that perhaps holds for the Arabs a much less symbolic significance. While Arabs have fought bitterly for a 23rd Arab state, Kurdish calls for a single Kurdish state have been met with repression and ethnic cleansing.

Unfortunately, the conflict is not merely about the Jews and Palestinians, but is as much about a greater Arab-Western conflict - as with the days of the Crusades - and is concerned with pride and historical standing.

However, the excessive force deployed by Israel should not be tolerated either. Intimidation and hostage taking of its soldiers is intolerable, but the destruction of its neighbours infrastructure and economy is a totally unacceptable response: especially by a country seeking peace with its Arab counterparts after decades of war and bloodshed.

In the new age of democracy, liberty and human rights, no race has the power to subjugate another, or deny its existence. Without long-term peace, based on compromise and diplomacy, conflict is likely to be the normal way of life in the case of Israel and the Palestinians for centuries more.