Israel-Palestine Conflict

See also: Arab-Israeli Conflict

(PD) Map: CIA World Factbook
Map of Israel, showing the Palestinian territories (The West Bank and Gaza Strip) and parts of the surrounding Arab states.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, is an intermittent and ongoing series of clashes between the State of Israel and the people under the Palestinian Authority, with occasional spillover into neighboring countries. The conflict has, in some form or another, lasted the whole of the 20th century and into the 21st, and a solution still remains elusive.

There are three broad classes of solution, not including the militarily unlikely destruction of Israel.

• Zero-state solution [r]: A solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict that establishes a Greater Israel on both sides of the Jordan River, with no Palestinian state; it generally assumes Palestinians adopt Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship ^[e]
• One-state solution [r]: Add brief definition or description
• Two-state solution [r]: Resolution of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by creating distinct, sovereign Israeli and Palestinian states, with adjustments of current borders ^[e]

A two-state solution probably has the greatest support outside Israel and Palestine.

Robert Kaplan has suggested the two sides are, under present circumstances, unable to find a solution and are each driving to more extremism. He writes that the most recent Israeli government, while the most recalcitrant to date, accurately reflects the mood of the Israeli electorate, tired of not being to find a credible Palestinian negotiating partner as Hamas, officially committed to the destruction of Israel, cannot agree with Fatah, now the minority party. While actual Hamas policies are actually more nuanced, using the principle of hudna, the words of the Hamas charter remain threatening.

If that is indeed the case, foreign intervention will be needed to break the deadlock. There have been many proposals. The Quartet, of the UN, the European Union, Russia and the United States, recommends a two-state solution. Recently, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized a solution will have to involve Jerusalem as the capital of two states.

Israel-Palestine Conflict before partition

The conflict's origins trace back to the late 19th century. Initially, the Zionist movement advocated the return of Jews to ancient homeland of Israel, known to its Arab inhabitants and most of the world as Palestine. Often fleeing pogroms and inspired by Zionist ideas, several tens of thousands of Jews had immigrated to Palestine by the start of World War I. The Palestinian Jewish population, which stood at roughly 24,000 in 1880, swelled to approximately 90,000 in 1914. Already in 1891, some Arab notables sent a petition to Constantinople demanding an end to Jewish immigration and land purchase.

At the end of War War I, the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of Palestine, and indeed much of the Middle East, was dissolved. Palestine became a mandated territory of the United Kingdom. During World War I, British Foreign Minster Arthur Balfour had issued the Balfour Declaration, a statement that the UK supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as long as the civil rights of the Arab population were preserved.

British rule begins

Following its handover to the British, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased greatly. Between 1915 and 1931, British Palestine received almost as many Jewish immigrants as it had in the entire time before World War I. This alarmed the Arabs, and tensions between the two communities increased, leading to rioting on several occasions in the 1920's and 1930's. A major Arab riot lasting in August 1929 led to the abandonment of a number Jewish new communities and, most notably, the "old established" community of Hebron. While "there was little retaliation by Jews, a Jewish counter-attack claimed the lives of six Arabs; British police killed 116 Arabs while trying to reimpose order. Again in 1936, Palestinian Arabs, demanding an end to all Jewish immigration, rioted, launching attacks on Jewish towns and farms, and clashing with British police.

At this time, British officials looking for a solution to the problem began to propose the division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab components. Since Jews and Arabs were both scattered throughout the country, and since both would want control of the holy city of Jerusalem, just how to divided the area up proved an almost unsolvable problem. The British also implemented measures restricting further Jewish immigration to Palestine, in hopes of comforting Arab fears of a demographic takeover and reducing tensions.

The Holocaust

As the Nazis came to power in 1933 and began persecuting Jews, immigration to Palestine became an ever more attractive option. T. After the war, most of Europe's surviving Jews had lost their homes and livelihoods, and needed a new place to rebuild their lives. The Holocaust had also had a profound psychological effect on the Jews-many, rightly or wrongly, believed that their non-Jewish neighbors had been complicit in their persecution, or at least allowed it to happen. They began to feel that they would never be truly safe an any country were they were a minority-which, at the time, was everywhere in the world. Many began to see Zionism as the solution, and what was once a minority opinion among Jews quickly became mainstream. The number of Jews wishing to go to Palestine exploded.

Civil war

Tensions, meanwhile, between Arabs and Jews in Palestine had likewise gone through the roof. The British had completely closed Palestine to Jewish immigration in the years leading up to World War II-a move designed to placate the Arabs, who feared being made a minority in their own country, but which infuriated the Jews. Jewish terrorist groups such as Irgun and the Stern Gang were formed to throw off British rule and establish a Jewish state by force. They attacked the British as well as the Arab population, who they saw as enemies conspiring against the Jewish people. In 1946, Irgun bombed the southern wing of the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, which the British had established as their headquarters. Ninety-one people were killed.

The situation in Palestine was rapidly escalating into a civil war, with Jews attacking Arabs, Arabs increasingly retaliating, and the British coming under fire from both. Feeling unable to do any more to solve the problem, and wanting to wash its hands of the whole situation, the British asked the newly created United Nations to come up with a solution.

Division of Palestine proposed by UNSCOP (compare with map in introduction, which shows territory the Israelis actually took during the war)

Preparation for partition

The UN created the United Nations Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), to study the problem and officially recommend a solution. In 1947, UNSCOP, returning to the earlier British proposals of partition, recommended that Palestine be divided into two non-contigious areas-a Jewish state with a slight Jewish majority and an Arab state with a large Arab majority. Jerusalem and the area surrounding it were to be administered by the United Nations. The Jews accepted the plan, but the Arabs vehemently rejected it, claiming that giving half of Palestine to a minority of its population-many of whom, moreover, had only recently arrived from foreign countries-was unfair, especially since many Arabs would wind up living in the Jewish state. Nevertheless, the plan was supported by practically all western countries, who ensured its passage by the United Nations. The passing of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947 immediately prompted Arab attacks on Jewish population centers and traffic, thus signalling the start of the civil war in Palestine. While there were counter-attacks by the mainstream and splinter Jewish militias, the community generally engaged only in defensive operations through March of 1948, when, with the war going poorly, there was a shift to offensive operations.

Partition and the War of 1948

The conventional phase of the war began after May 14th, 1948, when the Jewish community of Palestine officially declared independence as the State of Israel. The following day, the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (now Jordan), and Lebanon, along with Palestinian Arab volunteers, immediately attacked the new country. The Arab armies suffered from poor training and equipment, as well as a lack of planning, and the war went spectacularly badly for them from the start. The Transjordanian Arab Legion, which had been trained by the British and was by far the best fighting force the Arabs had, managed to hold a large area abutting the Jordan river, including the eastern half of Jerusalem, which became known as the West Bank. The Egyptians retained a small piece of land, centered around the city of Gaza, that became known as the Gaza Strip. The rest of Palestine fell to the Israelis, who took and annexed large areas that UNSCOP's partition plan had allocated to the Arabs. Most of the Arab population of these areas fled and became refugees. Mainstream Israeli historians and some other historians focus on the large numbers of refugees who chose to flee of their own free will or responded to Arab calls for evacuation. Official Arab and revisionist Israeli historiography, and some other historians, focus on the refugees who were expelled by Israeli troops. In 1949, the Arab states and Israel agreed to a truce.

Following the war, the region slipped into an uneasy peace. The Palestinian refugees, about 750,000 people, stayed in nearby Arab countries, where the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a special organization created by the UN to care for the refugees, built camps for them. Jordan allowed Palestinians in its territory full citizenship, and annexed the West Bank in 1950. The other Arab states did not allow their refugee populations citizenship, and denied them access to high-paying jobs and confined the majority of them to the camps, which over time grew into large, impoverished slums.

The Yom Kippur War and the Rise of the PLO

The Six-Day War shocked the Arab world. For the Palestinians, nothing could hide the fact that, twice, their Arab allies had gone up against Israel only to suffer resounding defeats. A new militancy began to spread among the Palestinians, calling for them to fight Israel themselves, rather than leave it to the other Arab states.

In 1964, the Arab countries had brought together a collection of Palestinian parties into an umbrella group, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), dedicated to the military destruction of Israel. For most of its early years, however, it had been controlled by individuals influenced by Nasser and had not led an independent existence.

In 1969 however, a charismatic Palestinian politician, Yasser Arafat, manuvered himself into the PLO presidency. He placed members of his own party, Fatah, in control at the expense of the now, to many Palestinians, discredited Egyptians and Syrians. The PLO began, increasingly, to take on an independent existence.

The organization, however, suffered a major setback. In September 1970, the government of Jordan, concerned that the PLO was becoming a threat to its power, moved against the organization and suppressed it. The PLO leadership and many of its members fled to Lebanon, where they established a new base in that country's many Palestinian refugee camps.

Black September evolved as a terrorist action group under the PLO.

Egypt

Meanwhile, in Egypt, Nasser died in 1970 and was replaced by Anwar Sadat, who advocated continued war with Israel, and made plans with Syria for another surprise attack. On October 6th, 1973, the Egyptian and Syrian armies, supported by Iraq, launched a surprise attack on Israel, during the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. At first, the Arab armies did well, with Egypt advancing into the Sinai and Syria retaking parts of the Golan Heights. Then, the war swung back in Israel's favor. By the second week, the Golan Heights had been retaken. On October 15th, an Israeli force under General Ariel Sharon pushed through a weak point in Egyptian lines and crossed the Suez canal. On October 26th, the parties agreed to a UN-brokered cease-fire. Farther peace negotiations, however, failed.

Early Egyptian successes, however, strengthened national pride, and may have made it politically possible for Sadat to make a later peace initiative to Israel. That initiative secured one of Israel's fronts with Palestine, and also allowed some cooperation with respect to Gaza.

Terrorism and Lebanon

See also: Lebanon#The Civil War

The PLO, meanwhile, began to turn to terrorism. Since moving to Lebanon, the PLO had waged a terrorist campaign against Israel, exploding bombs in Israeli cites, infiltrating soldiers across the border to attack Israeli civilians. Its Black September subgroup murderd eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich.

In 1978, PLO terrorists operating from Lebanon hijacked an Israeli bus and eventually killed most of its passengers, prompting Israel to invade Lebanon to root out the PLO. For the rest of the 1970's and into the 1980's, the Arab-Israeli conflict was dominated by the Israel-PLO struggle in Lebanon and acts of PLO terrorism-some of them quite deadly.

The First Intifada

Meanwhile, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, known since 1967 as the Occupied Territories, the next chapter of the long conflict was unfolding Since their takeover by Israel in the Six-Day war, Palestinians in the territories had been, essentially, second class citizens, subject to arbitrary actions such as Israeli house demolitions. The territories' bad economies' and high unemployment, and the failure of PLO terrorism to do anything other than add more names to the tally of innocent deaths, grab headlines, and lead to massive Israeli retaliation all contributed to a growing sense of frustration and disillusionment.

In 1987, riots broke out in Jabalia refugee camp, in response to the earlier deaths of several Palestinians in an accident at Erez border crossing. The riots soon spread throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Palestinians launched strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience actions, and most famously, threw rocks at Israeli soldiers. The events soon became known as the Intifada, an Arabic word which literally translates to "shaking off", but in has the same meaning as "uprising" in English. Although the Intifada was at first mostly spontaneous, the PLO quickly sponsored the disturbances and soon established its leadership.

The Intifada continued for years. Palestinians often rioted violently, and were brutally suppressed by Israeli troops. Between 1987 and 1993, over 1000 Palestinians were killed by Israelis, as opposed to about 160 Israelis killed by Palestinians. The UN condemned Israel for its violence against the Palestinian population.

After 1993, the Intifada gradually petered out. Earlier, the PLO had begun negotiating with the Israelis, on a possible final end to the conflict. In 1993, the two sides reached a breakthrough that, at last, offered hope of a permanent solution.

Israeli presence in Palestine

For a variety of political and security reasons, Israel has been establishing settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. There are obvious emotional reasons while Palestinians would consider this an encroachment.

Geneva Convention issues

It is also controversial in international law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that: ‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’. As far as occupation, the International Committee of the Red Cross has consistently maintained that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to these lands, and Israel is in the formal role of Occupying Power: "Common Article 2: “the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” The conditions of “armed conflict” between “two or more of the High Contracting Parties,” as set forth in the article, are fulfilled in that there was a war between two signatories, Israel and Jordan. " UN Resolution 242 does not accept the right to establish civilian settlements, based on and especially Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneval Convention.

Arguments that Article 49 applies

"The authoritative commentary of this convention prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross states that this prohibition was adopted to prohibit the colonization of occupied territories. It does not distinguish between forcible and non-forcible population transfers and prohibits any and all population transfers from the occupying power to occupied territory."

On 9 June 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled unanimously in an advisory opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the occupied Palestinian territories and that Israeli settlements there are illegal. This included the opinion of Thomas Buergenthal, the US judge at the International Court and who, whilst exercising his discretion to refrain from hearing the case, concurred with the Court’s finding on the illegality of Israeli settlements.

Israeli position

Stated in 2001, the position of the State of Israel is that: "Jewish settlement in West Bank and Gaza Strip territory has existed from time immemorial and was expressly recognised as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people's ancient homeland. Indeed, Article 6 of the Mandate provided as follows:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use"

"Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya'acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea and Samaria, the communities north of the Dead Sea and Kfar Darom in the Gaza region, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. To be sure, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land."

With respect to the Convention, "the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza."

• Israel has a historic right to settle in these areas
• The Fourth Geneva Convention is not relevant to this situation.

Humanitarian issues

Even assuming that the settlements are legal, the conduct of Israeli forces in the West Bank has been questioned as violations of international humanitarian law.

Walls

Israel has constructed walls and other barriers, which it held were necessary for its security. Various Palestinian buildings were destroyed, and roads made impassable for travel inside Palestine. The International Court of Justice observed,

observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel's policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated régime “create a ‘fait accompli' on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”. The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously, . . . severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel's obligation to respect that right”.

The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting‑off of access to primary water sources, etc.). It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated régime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

While there are precedents for derogation of human rights rules "where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”. The court concluded"Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.