posted on the web on April 21 2003

Country Data

Full Name: State of Israel Capital: Jerusalem Population: 6,029,529 (2002 est.) Location: Middle East Total area: 20,770 sq km Language: Hebrew Ethnic groups: Jewish 80.1%, non-Jewish (mostly Arab) 19.9% Religions: Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6%, Christian 2.1% Currency: New Israeli shekel IGO memberships: UN, WHO, WTO Internet site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Source: CIA World Factbook

“We tried the political process and it failed…Now armed resistance is our only option” (1). Escalating violence between Israel and the Palestinians has brought an increase of such hopeless sentiments on both sides. In the face of war in Iraq, the waning attention of the world to resuming diplomacy and moving towards peace has only added to the deterioration of the situation. With strikes occurring almost daily and the economies of both countries at record lows, it is obvious that the violence has reached an unsustainable level. The question is how to begin fixing relations between the two bitter enemies before things spiral to a point beyond the reach of diplomacy.

In 2000, President Clinton came very close to orchestrating an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in negotiations at Camp David. Then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was willing to make unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, including many that went against the wishes and beliefs of some Israeli citizens. Hope was high that Barak’s flexibility would finally lead to a viable resolution. Ultimately though, like so many before them, the peace proposals failed; Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat did not find them acceptable.

The subsequent outbreak of the Palestinian intifada or uprising marked the resumption of massive violence and terror in Israel and a change in the leadership of Israel marked a downturn in diplomatic efforts towards resolving the situation. The current Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is not open to making concessions to the Palestinians, and he refuses to negotiate with them while Arafat remains in power. Compromise on the major issues that have been a barrier to achieving peace since the creation of Israel in 1948 seems less possible now than ever before.

There are three core issues at stake in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The first major issue is Palestinian refugees. These are Palestinian people who either fled or were forced out of Israel when it was created. A United Nations resolution granted them the right to return, and Palestinians feel the refugees should be allowed to return to their homes not just because of this resolution but also in acknowledgment of the many wrongs done to Palestinians by Israel. Israeli law barred the return of the refugees because it would create a disproportionately high Palestinian demographic in the country, which Israel feels would undermine the purpose and security of the Israeli state. Currently over a million such refugees are housed in UN camps in Gaza and the West Bank. These camps are severely under funded, especially now that many donor countries are withholding funds in order to deal with the emergency situation in Iraq, and 75% of their occupants live on less than $2 a day (2).

A second major source of disagreement between Israel and the Palestinians is control of Jerusalem. A UN partition granted shared control of the city, but Israel annexed West Jerusalem in its War of Independence, and after the Six Day War of 1967 annexed East Jerusalem as well. Both Israel and the Palestinians claim they must control this holy city in order to ensure maintained access to their sacred sites. One of the most highly volatile sites is Rachel’s tomb, a holy site in the Jewish faith, which lies just outside Jerusalem close to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem and has been subject to many attacks. In February of 2003 Israel announced plans for the construction of a wall surrounding Rachel’s tomb, which will necessarily run through part of Bethlehem. As a result, Rachel’s Tomb will essentially be annexed into Jerusalem. This wall will trap many Palestinians on the Israeli side, separating them from their places of business and making them feel extremely vulnerable (3).

The third key issue is the creation of a Palestinian state. The particular regions in question are the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. In the West Bank particularly there are Palestinian settlements on territory controlled by the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority. These territories remain separated by Israeli settlements and currently many are occupied by Israeli troops. According to Israel, these three areas are part of the land given to the Jews in the bible. In addition, the West Bank is important for Israeli security as its first line of defense against the east, an area that largely holds anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiments. The Palestinian authority maintains that it has a right to its own country consisting of these regions. It believes Israeli settlements in the West Bank are intended to separate Palestinian territory and prevent formation of a future Palestinian state. Currently, there is agreement by all parties that there should be a two-state solution giving the Palestinians some territory. The point of debate is how much land they should receive.

Views on these issues are extremely ideological, and a failure to attain adequate compromise has been the downfall of many rounds of peace talks in the past. The only possible way to proceed with negotiations is to being with the smaller, more soluble issues such as continued Israeli settlement and occupation in the West Bank. It is conceivable that with negotiation a compromise could be reached wherein Israel would agree to cease settlement in this region and the Palestinians would agree to allow the majority of current settlements to remain. Solving smaller issues first will make the problems seem less intractable and compromise more viable. Reaching positive solutions will build trust and allow talks to move on to the more difficult issue, such as Jerusalem, with more hope and confidence. The ultimate goal should be a two-state solution that provides mechanisms allowing Israeli and Palestinian states to exist side by side without the constant threat of violence. This huge and difficult goal can be reached by beginning with small progress on much smaller and less controversial issues.

With the current levels of unrest in Israel, however, negotiations on these key issues are impossible. There can be no progress in diplomacy until violence has been sufficiently curbed and a level of trust restored. As the situation stands right now, each side feels that in the interest of national security it cannot negotiate until the other ceases its attacks. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians is willing to be the first to cease attacks because in the interest of national security, neither side feels it can safely alleviate military pressure until the other has done so.

The 2000 Palestinian intifada led to military response by Israel and in March of 2002 Israeli forces moved into Palestinian areas of the West Bank to halt attacks on its citizens (4). Suicide bombings and terrorist attacks have been prevalent and Israel sees military action as the only method of self-defense. Its forces claim to fire only in the face of Palestinian violence or to kill confirmed members of Palestinian terrorist groups. Military strikes have, however, caused much collateral damage and popular Palestinian opinion, always primarily anti-Israel, has become increasingly and violently so.

Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have stepped up attacks as Yasser Arafat has become increasingly unable to control their actions. In response to Israeli military action, support for these terrorist groups has grown as Palestinians begin to see armed resistance as their only line of defense (5). With both Palestinians and Israelis under the constant threat of attack and each side using armed strikes in an attempt to gain security, they seem caught in an endless cycle of using violence to stop violence.

Talks were recently conducted in London to discuss a possible ‘roadmap’ for peace. The Quartet, a group consisting of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, orchestrated separate meetings with both Israel and the Palestinians to develop a path towards resuming negotiations and eventually reaching a settlement. An acceptable roadmap was not agreed upon. In an atmosphere that is so violent and volatile, a delicate trust must be built before diplomacy can begin. Roadmap talks must be continued, but changes are necessary if trust is to be established.

For one, President Bush must devote a great deal more attention to this explosive situation. Sharon prefers to deal with the U.S. than the Quartet because the U.S. has traditionally been pro-Israel (6). Gaining the trust of Sharon in any kind of diplomatic negotiations will require a deep involvement by the Bush administration. That is not to say that America should take over sole control of the peace process, however, U.S. involvement within the Quartet (or whatever institution ultimately orchestrates negotiations) must be forthcoming and strong.

For the first time, there is willingness on the part of Arafat to be flexible and meet the demands of the Quartet. Most notably, Arafat has agreed to select a prime minister to share some of his traditionally authoritative power, one of the major Quartet demands. This change of position may be in response to the suffering of the Palestinian people or may be an attempt to gain national support for the Palestinian Authority government, which has lost much of its former popular support over the past years. Whatever the reason, Arafat is finally willing to make concessions, and has fully accepted the roadmap proposed by the Quartet (7). Admittedly, terrorist attacks have not stopped, but these moves by Arafat represent a huge step forward by the Palestinian leadership.

It is now Israel, under Sharon’s leadership, that refuses to make concessions. Sharon will not negotiate with the Palestinians unless a regime change ousts Arafat from power, and he has taken no steps to ease the humanitarian situation created by increased Israeli settlements and occupation in the West Bank. Sharon has also rejected the preliminary roadmap proposal claiming that it will need many changes before it can be acceptable to Israel (8).

We are not used to seeing Israel in the role of the aggressor. Traditionally, the Palestinian government has backed suicide attacks on Israeli civilians and been the unjust aggressor, but in the current situation it must be admitted that Israel is largely to blame for a failure to resume diplomatic negotiations. The two parties most detrimental to diplomacy are currently the Israeli government and Palestinian terrorist groups. The violent attacks perpetrated by these two groups must be stopped before normal relations can be assumed.

An obstacle to tempering Sharon’s attitude is the recent creation of a new coalition government. A coalition has been created between Sharon’s own Likud party, the National Religious Party that believes that Arafat should be killed and a Palestinian state should never be created and the Shinui Party, which believes no attention should be given to the Palestinian situation until domestic concerns are addressed. In the face of such a right-leaning coalition, the Labor Party, which supports evacuating Israeli settlements and negotiating with the Palestinians, will have no say. Without an opportunity to make its voice heard, the Labor Party will not be able to present opposition to Sharon’s hard-line policies and be a liberal force to counterbalance and check the current leadership.

Furthermore, Sharon believes that the U.S.-led war in Iraq will trigger a solution to their problems. The hope is that regime change in Iraq will lead to a chain reaction and the Palestinians will rise up to overthrow Arafat (9). This is strictly wishful thinking as it is impossible to know what the climate will be at the conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sharon’s farfetched idea that war in Iraq will solve his problems, however, has made him less willing to compromise in the months leading up to the Iraqi war. Now that war is upon us, Sharon will be forced to recognize that this event will not present a miracle solution to his problems and hopefully will look to more practical solutions.

In order to begin the arduous process of resuming negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, a ceasefire must be signed and adhered to. Until each side feels they have some degree of national security, diplomacy can never proceed to deal with the core issues. The way to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire is to involve the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority government, and the terrorist groups Hamas and Jihad. These terrorist groups must be dealt with directly because they operate independently of and beyond the control of the government. In the current atmosphere of violence, diplomacy is impossible due to the lack of trust that exists. No player is willing to stop its violent attacks unless the other does and no player is willing to negotiate until all violence is stopped. To ensure an end to the violence so that negotiation can begin, a comprehensive ceasefire must involve the prominent Palestinian terrorist groups in addition to the Israeli and Palestinian governments.

With the participation of the international community, it will be possible to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. World leaders must simply be willing to make some untraditional and unprecedented maneuvers such as recognizing terrorist groups in parts of the negotiations in order to secure an atmosphere of increased safety and trust. In addition, patience is necessary to revive attempts to deal with smaller, more tractable issues before the tougher, ideological concerns are tackled. Leaders must also be able to place themselves in the uncomfortable position of recognizing that Israel is now the stubborn aggressor with the most potential to put a halt to diplomacy. This will be especially difficult in the anti-Arab atmosphere that has been created by the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Both the Palestinians and Israel are so far unwilling to compromise on certain issues, but in this round of negotiations it is Israel, not the Palestinians, that must be dealt with most carefully.

Most importantly, world leaders must be willing to commit themselves to solving this pressing problem. Historical evidence shows that deep involvement, especially by the president of the U.S., is necessary to approach a peace agreement; for example, President Carter was instrumental in achieving peace between Israel and Egypt. Imprecise, weak and unstudied proposals are unacceptable and will not accomplish anything. Leaders must work together to orchestrate talks with and between Israel and the Palestinians. Developing a degree of trust between these two countries will be one of the first and most important roadblocks, and the involvement of impartial and dedicated world leaders as mediators will be instrumental in achieving this goal.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has long been one of the most pressing and disturbing international issues. Diplomacy has begun and broken down time and time again, and since the 2000 intifada prospects for resuming peace talks have seemed especially dim. The goal of achieving peace in this region, though further away than before, is still attainable. Reaching it will require commitment and patience, but it can and must be reached. The current levels of violence and suffering in both Israel and the Palestinians are unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. Leaders of the world cannot allow themselves to accept that the situation can never be improved and that, as one Israeli hopelessly asserted, ending the conflict is “going to take the coming of the Messiah” (10).

Jessica Stahl is a student at Princeton University, USA.

Bibliography

1. Barbara Plett, Hamas Rises From The PA’s Ashes (BBC News, 6 November 2002).
2. James Rodgers, UN Warns of Palestinian Aid Crisis (BBC News, 10 February 2003).
3. James Bennet, Palestinians Fear Being Trapped by Israeli Wall (NY Times, 18 February 2003).
4. Middle East Conflict (BBC News, 27 February 2003).
5. Barbara Plett, Hamas Rises From the PA’s Ashes (BBC News, 6 November 2002).
6. James Bennet, Israel Sees War in Iraq as Path to Mideast Peace (NY Times, 24 February 2003).
7. James Bennet, Arafat Will Appoint a Prime Minister, A Major US Demand (NY Times, 15 February 2003).
8. Envoys Urge Israeli-Palestinian Truce (NY Times, 20 February 2003).
9. James Bennet, Israel Sees War in Iraq as Path to Mideast Peace (NY Times, 24 February 2003).
10. James Bennet, Palestinians Fear Being Trapped By Israeli Wall (NY Times, 21 February 2003).