The Unending Crusade for Peace, Justice, and Security - A Call for Decisiveness in Negotiations for
Introduction
The contemporary crusade for control of the Holy Land has been plagued by “religious fervor, religious aspirations, historical economic grievances, and territorial rivalry” between Israeli and Palestinian factions ( Goldfarb, 2011). Conflict between Israel and Palestine has created a lasting “geo political impact” on the peace and security of the Middle East predating World War I (Goldfarb, 2011). Diplomatic solutions suggest Israel give up land in these areas that were attained during the major conflicts in 1948 and 1967 (Kelman). However, this has become a challenge seeing that Israel has built major settlements in the disputed areas. While non-state actors in Palestine have gained power in government from the moderate PLO (ADL, “Key Dates in Israel’s History,” n.d.). Non-state actors such as Hamas do not support the existence of Israel and believe that further negotiations are pointless ( USA Today Editors, 2017). Such stubbornness on both sides has contributed to the failure of final negotiations.
The lack of diplomatic progress and failed solutions have led to consequences of: terrorism, territorial disputes over the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, resources, and the displacement of refugees. It is clear concessions must be made on both sides. Kelman correlates “profound sense of distrust and ultimate intentions of the other side” has led to the stalemate of diplomatic relations between Israelis and Palestinians (2011). Past diplomatic efforts supporting the two-state solution have faltered, however based on the interests of both states, it is clear that it remains the most viable option. Suggestions for one-state solutions have been offered by both rightist Israelis and leftist Palestinians (Kershner, 2017). However, both controversial versions bring about objections from the international community (Kelman, 2017). Moreover, The United States has maintained the role as an honest broker between Israel and Palestine, promoting the acceptance of the two-state solution. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has made controversial policy statements, decisions, and appointments regarding diplomacy regarding Israel and Palestine (Kurtzer, 2016). Such actions have disrupted precedent of reinforcement of the two-state solution (Kershner,2017). If President Trump pursues such behavior he risks promoting nationalist fervor in both Israel and Palestine thus escalating hostilities. Polarizing nationalism plagues the diplomatic progress of final negotiations between Israel and Palestine. However it is clear that concessions must be made to build trust between the conflicted states. Thus, the most effective method to implement in this political climate is the reinforcement of the two-state solution.
Division of Land
Nationalism and religious strife has plagued the conflict pre-dating the 1948 British Mandate. Britain gained control of the territory after the Ottoman Empire lost control of the land (ADL, “Key Dates in Israel’s History,” n.d.). However, Britain could not handle the instability and conflict caused by the Arab and Jewish populace ( Kelman, 2011). Both groups felt a sense of entitlement to the land such sentiment has extended to present day ( USA Today Editors, 2017). Arab nationalist and Jewish nationalism arose during the same period of history with claims to the same territory ( Kelman, 2011). This rationale was the underlying basis for an equitable solution based on the partition of a two-state solution,” seeing that religious and national pride made coexistence seem implausible ( USA Today Editors,2017 ). As a result, the UN introduced the basis of the two-state solution in 1948 in which two lands would be created one for Israelis and one for Palestinians (Goldfarb, 2011). However, Palestinians rejected the UN proposition seeing that they did not support the existence of an Israeli state. In response to the lack of cooperation from the Palestinian faction, Israel perpetrates the 1948 War and successfully gains control of the territory exceeding 50% the recommended UN borders.
In 1967 Israel defeats Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in what is known as the Six Day War. Cook believes that this conflict, “sets the stage for conflicts we see today” regarding Israel’s distribution and claims to territory (2017). The War was initiated by hostilities between Egypt and Israel on the Sinai Peninsula. In response to Egypt’s defeat Syria and Jordan attacked Israel, however Israel repelled their advances and gained control of the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem ( Cook, 2017, Goldfarb, 2008, and USA Today Editors, 2017). From 1967-2000 Israelis and Arabs could move between the occupied areas, however now Palestinians struggle to move throughout the area due the demarcation lines between Gaza and Israel and strict immigration laws (Sabbagh, 2017). The United Nations in Resolution 242 called for,” Israeli forces to withdraw from occupied territories in exchange for peace” this established the principle for land for peace negotiations (Kurtzer, 2008, United Nations, 1967 ). This bargaining principle has been utilized in various stages of negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in some cases it has been successful and others it has failed. For instance, in 1973 after Egypt and Syria’s surprise attack on Israel, former Secretary of Henry Kissinger initiated negotiations between the feuding parties (Cook,2008).
Kissinger’s diplomatic efforts disengaged Israeli occupation in Sinai Peninsula marking the first major US attempt to resolve Arab Israeli conflict (Kurtzer,2008, ADL, “Key Events in Israel’s History, n.d.). Goldfarb designates Kissinger’s involvement “as the basis for US policy and development of negotiations (2008). Series of talks and negotiations in the early 1990s showed promise, Israel recognized the PLO has
the governing body nof Palestine and transferred administrative control of the West Bank. While these were steps in the right direction, future efforts failed ( Kurtzer, 2008, ADL, “Response to Inaccuracies,” n.d.). Israelis continued to establish settlements and increase restrictions on Palestinian immigration after the Second Intifada in 2004. The following years suicide bombing in public areas killed thousands of Israeli civilians (ADL, “Key Events in Israel’s History, n.d.).
Nationalism and radicalism strengthened in both Israel and Palestine after the Second Intifada (Goldfarb,2008). When Yasser Arafat the leader of the PLO died in 2004 Hamas gained power in the Palestinian governing body (ADL, “Key Events in Israel’s History,”n.d.). In 2005, after years of back and forth violence Israel concedes and evacuates settlers from the Gaza strip and four settlements in the West Bank (ADL, “Key Events in Israel’s History,”n.d.). With the increased influence of Hamas, it created a divided Palestinian government in which” nationalists controlled the West Bank and Islamists rule Gaza” (USA Today Editors, 2017). The rise of opposing Palestinian and Israeli religious fervor and nationalism have proposed solutions that promote “a Greater Israel or Greater Palestine” (USA Today Editors, 2017). Palestinian leftists and Israeli rightists support solutions that enhance their factions cause rather than negotiating a two-state solution (USA Today Editors,2017). Conversely, moderates on both sides “strongly hold that a two-state solution is the only acceptable resolution of the conflict” (Fisher,2017).
The Role of Nationalistic and Religious Fervor and Implications on Diplomatic Initiatives
In the context of contemporary negotiations there has been limited progress in headway for final negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian governments. What has continued to hurt Palestinian territorial gains, has been the sentiment of a minority of the Arab population that does not support the existence of Israel (Bhattachaji et. al, 2008). This lack of acceptance has counteractively contributed to the expansion of Israeli territory since the Palestinian denial of the first proposed two-state solution in 1948 (Goldfarb ,2008). Palestine has since had an unfair disadvantage in determining its territorial rights and claims. Israel had continued to expand its territory into areas that are not recognized or endorsed by the international community.
Throughout the process of unsanctioned expansion, Israel has established “ intricate infrastructure and economies” in the form of mainly housing settlements (Bhattachaji et al., 2008). Israeli territorial expansion and strict immigration laws have displaced an estimated 4.4 million refugees sandwiched between Israel and its neighbors (Cook et al, 2008). Moreover, Palestinian’s basic human rights have continued to be violated due to restricted access to electricity and water in the West Bank. Additionally, Palestinian families and businesses have been forcibly removed from Jerusalem (Cook et al, 2008).
Israel in many cases claims their annexed borders are justified by religious right (Kurtzer, 2008). This is seen in the site of Jerusalem, in which the Jewish people consider it their holiest site, though Arab Muslims also consider the are sacred. Thus, it will be difficult to negotiate an arrangement that appeases both sides. Bronner contends that diplomatic stagnation is caused by religious dominance and nationalistic superiority (2011). Israeli’s unwillingness to negotiate is the result of Hamas’s influence in the Palestinian Authority ( Cook et. al, 2008). Israel maintains that they should not be forced to negotiate with a divided leadership in which the Hamas controlled Gaza “seeks the destruction of Israel” ( Cook, 2001, Bronner, 2011, Shindler,2017). The publics of both Israel and Palestine support the negotiations for a two-state solution. However, progress remains atrophic due to the rightist politicians in Israel and leftist government leaders in the Palestinian authority who want to assert their dominance in the region (Kershner, 2017).
One State vs Two State Solutions
The lack of diplomatic progress and failed solutions have led to grave consequences including continued violence and conflict over the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, resources, and the displacement of refugees. It is clear concessions must be made on both sides. Kelman describes the situation in which “both publics embrace a two-state solution yet are not ready to give whole hearted support to negotiations because of profound sense of distrust and ultimate intentions of the other side (2011). Past diplomatic efforts have faltered regarding the final negotiations for a two-state solution. Suggestions for one-state solution has been offered by both rightist Israelis and leftist Palestinians (Kershner 2017). Both versions bring about objections from the international community. Kelman recommends that “Leaders must recognize in a profound conflict of national identity and national existence only an integrative win-win strategy can provide a solution that each can achieve the needed acknowledgements, commitments, and concession from the other by offering such acknowledgements and commitments to the other” (2011).
The two-state solution is defined as the establishment of an independent state that would peacefully coexists with the Jewish state of Israel (USA Today Editors, 2017). Kershner asserts “ Israelis and Palestinians want to run their countries differently” maintaining that a two-state solution is the most viable (2017). Proponents of the two-state solution believe that it will bring about Peace in the Middle East (Cook et al, 2011). Kelman reports, pluralities in both Israel and Palestine support the future institution of a two-state policy along with mutual recognition of national identity (2011). Disputes over terms such as Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees have created a sense of “hopelessness and fear that if the sides cannot negotiate a two-state solution” a one state solution should be considered (Kershner, 2017).
There are two proposed forms of the one-state solution: 1. Supported by leftist Palestinians, a single democratic country which would dismantle the Jewish state 2. Rightist Israelis which would absorb the West Bank, thus denying Palestinian’s citizenship (Kershner,2017). Both Palestinian and Israeli factions believe that the options would increase violence and conflict. Sabbagh characterizes the one-state solution supported by Israeli rightists “as a colonist controlled state, run on racist lines, that permanently deprives indigenous inhabitants of their rights (2017). Even Zionists in Israel qualify that this solution would lead to severe human rights violations of the Palestinian people (Kershner, 2017). The proposition of one democratic state is unacceptable Israeli Zionists and their Western allies, who honor the preservation of the Jewish in an independent state (ADL, “Addressing Insecurities,” n.d.). Israeli analyst Yossi Klein Halevi argues, “the notion that Palestinians and Jews, who can’t even negotiate a two-state solution could exist in one happy state is so ludicrous,” echoing sentiments from both disputed territories. Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator and Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization, suggests that if a two-state solution is no longer viable, a one-state solution will result in a new variation of apartheid (Fisher, 2017). Munayyer suggests that “any just solution should be based on two states, living side by side in peace and security (2017).” To appeal to the concerns of both Israeli and Palestinian publics, future negotiations must implement the establishment of two independent states. It will be in the best interest of the international community to encourage further diplomatic efforts, to ensure lasting stability within in the region. Political allies of both Israel and Palestine must enforce the importance of applying the two-state solution and recognize realistic compromises such as “land for peace” and the freeze of Israeli settlements in the final negotiation process.
U.S. Involvement
The United States has upheld its role as the honest arbiter and “prime guarantor of security” for Israel’s disputes ( Bronner, 2011). Bronner speculates that the United States has sustained its vested interest in the conflict because if it is solved, Washington can “unlock its own strategic dilemmas” in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (2011). Former Presidents showed their support of Israel’s interests, however remained critical of settlement expansion and of unmerited violence in Palestinian territories.
Since the Carter Administration the United States whole-heartedly supports the two-state solution. Various Presidents have approached the conflict with different tactics utilizing either the inside-out or outside-in to encourage diplomatic efforts. President Carter utilized the outside-in approach at the First Camp David in 1978, and utilized the effective use of land for peace ( Cook, 2005). President Reagan was the most critical of Israeli actions during his term, he called for the investigation of Israeli nuclear activities, among other complaints ( Reagan, 1982, Baker, Landler, 2017). Clinton attempted to bring about negotiations at Camp David ( Baker, Landler, 2017, Kelman, 2011). He selected over 200 provisions including border adjustments, Jerusalem control, settlements, and refugees that could substantiate a two-state solution( Kelman, 2011). However, his efforts were unsuccessful and resulted in an increase of violence within the region ( ADL, “ Key Events in Israel’s History,” n.d.). Both former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush endorsed the outside-in approach to negotiating. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush put together the first regional conference, in which Arab leaders sat down the Israeli Prime Minister ( Baker, Landler, 2007). George W. Bush did used a similar strategy at a summit in Annapolis, Maryland in 2007 ( Baker, Landler, 2007, Bush,2007) At the Summit in Maryland, former President Bush stressed that ultimate peace between Israel and Palestine can only exist if the two-state solution is enacted. President Obama failed in his diplomatic efforts in using both outside-in and inside-out approaches (2011). Throughout his Presidency, Obama made condemned the development of settlements because it damages the security of the two-state solution ( Cook, 2011). Former Secretary of State John Kerry asserted the viability of the two-state solution regarding it as “the only way this conflict can end, and there is not much time to achieve it, and there is no other alternative” (Kerry, 2013).
President Trump has claimed that he wants to end the war that “ never ends,”yet is policy actions have shown to be potentially counterproductive to peace ( Kurtzer, 2017). The President has appointed his unqualified former bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel (Kurtzer, 2017). Friedman has an ideology aligned with right wing Israelis who support the expansion of settlements and the inhumane one-state solution ( Kurtzer). However, Trump has back peddled on statements made by his Ambassador regarding topics of settlements recognizing “ the construction of new settlements may not be helpful” (Baker, Landler, 2017). Regarding President Trump’s territory strategies, he has remained ambiguous on which solution he supports, claiming that he wants to appease both Israelis and Palestinians. However, Trump cannot expect to establish peace by abolishing the precedent of the U.S. enforcement of a two-state solution. Friedman and his contemporaries who support such rightist ideologies will add to the nationalistic sense of entitlement of a small fraction of Israelis. If President Trump continues such policy initiatives and appointments he risks promoting nationalist fervor in both Israel and Palestine thus escalating hostilities.
Conclusion
The contemporary crusade for control of the holy land is marked nationalistic and religious entitlement from both Israel and Palestine. Diplomatic atrophy has further escalated tensions between Israel and Palestine. Polarizing nationalism creates a diplomatic stalemate in the “never ending war.” It is clear, that the relationship between Israel and Palestine is a ticking time bomb, it is crucial for the international community to diffuse the pressure before the waning mechanisms give way to violence and destruction. Concessions must be made to build trust between the conflicted states in order to establish two independent states, thus ensuring ultimate peace.
References
Baker, Peter, and Mark Landler. "Trump May Turn to Arab Allies for Help with Israeli-
Palestinian Relations." The New York Times. February 09, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/middleeast/trump-arabs-palestinians-israel.html.
Bhattachaji, Preeti, Julia Chue, Holly Fletcher, Margaret Goodlander, Eben Kaplan, Youkyung Lee, Michael Moran, Rakan Nimr, and Jeremy Sherlick. "Chapter 4: Parties to the Conflict." In Crisis Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, edited by Stephanie Hanson. Council on Foreign Relations, 2008. Accessed February 22, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850.
Bronner, Ethan. "Why America Chases an Israeli-Palestinian Peace." The New York Times. November 20, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21bronner.html.
Bush, President George W. "Joint Understanding Read by President Bush at Annapolis, November 2007." Address, Annapolis Conference, Maryland, United States, Annapolis, November 27, 2007. Accessed February 22, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850.
Cook, Steven A. "Chapter 2: The Territorial Puzzle." In Crisis Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Eben Kaplan, Preeti Bhattachaji, Julia Chue, Holly Fletcher, Margaret Goodlander, Youkyung Lee, Michael Moran, Rakan Nirmr, , and Jeremy Sherlick edited by Stephanie Hanson. Council on Foreign Relations, 2008. http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850.
Cook, Steven A. "Dim Prospects for Israeli-Palestinian Peace." Interview by Bernard Gwertzman. Council on Foreign Relations. May 25, 2011. http://www.cfr.org/israel/dim-prospects-israeli-palestinian-peace/p25081. Interviewee: Steven A. Cook, Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Visiting Fellow
Editors. "Israel-Palestinian Peace: One-state, Two-state Solutions Explained." USA Today. February 15, 2017. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/15/two-state-solution-one-state-solution-israel-palestinians/97949972/.
Fisher, Ian. "Palestinians Dismayed as U.S. Appears to Back Off Two-State Solution." The New York Times. February 15, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/trump-israel-two-state-solution.html.
Goldfarb, Michael. "Chapter 1: Timeline." In Crisis Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by, Preeti Bhattachaji, Julia Chue, Holly Fletcher, Maragret Goodlander, Youkyung Lee, Eben Kaplan, Michael Moran, Rakan Nirmr, and Jeremy Sherlick edited by Stephanie Hanson. Council on Foreign Relations, 2008. Accessed February 15, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850.
Kelman, Herbert C. "A One-Country/Two-State Solution To the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." Middle East Policy Council, Spring 2011, 18, no. 1, 27-41. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hckelman/files/one_country_two_state_solution.pdf?m=1360039974.
Kerry, Secretary John. "Secretary Kerry's Remarks on the Middle East Peace Process Talks, July 2013." Speech, Re-Started Israel Palestine Negotiations, July 20, 2013. http://www.cfr.org/palestine/secretary-kerrys-remarks-middle-east-peace-process-talks-july-2013/p31169.
Kershner, Isabel. "Is 2-State Solution Dead? In Israel, a Debate Over What’s Next." The New York Times. February 16, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-two-state-solution.html.
"Key Dates In Israel's History." Anti Defamation League. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://www.adl.org/israel-international/israel-middle-east/content/AG/dates-israels-history.html?authToken=2a0df43b2d707446d81bbf0df4643226b317c9e6#.WL5IcccSC-K.
Kurtzer, Daniel C. "Chapter 3: Diplomatic Efforts." In Crisis Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Preeti Bhattachaji, Julia Chue, Holly Fletcher, Margaret Goodlander, Eben Kaplan, Youkung Lee, Michael Moran,Rakan Nirmr, and Jeremy Sherlick, edited by Stephanie Hanson. Council on Foreign Relations, 2008. Accessed February 22, 2017. http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850.
Kurtzer, Daniel C. "Donald Trump’s Israel Ambassador Pick Is Hazardous to Peace." The New York Times. December 16, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/donald-trumps-israel-ambassador-pick-is-hazardous-to-peace.html.
Munnayer, Yousef. "One-State Solution Maybe Best for Israel and Palestinians?" Time. February 17, 2017. http://time.com/4675067/israel-palestinians-one-state-solution-trump/.
Reagan, Ronald. "The Reagan Plan: U.S. Policy for Peace in the Middle East." Speech, September 1, 1982. http://www.cfr.org/israel/reagan-plan-us-policy-peace-middle-east/p14140.
"Response To Common Inaccuracy: Bi-National/One-State Solution." Anti Defamation League. Accessed February 21, 2017. http://www.adl.org/israel-international/israel-middle-east/content/AG/inaccuracy-bi-national-state-one-state-solution.html.
Sabbagh, Karl, David Reed, and Frank Field. "Israel-Palestine: One State, Two States – Any Advance on Three?" The Guardian US Edition. February 16, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/16/israel-palestine-one-state-two-states-any-advance-on-three.
Shindler, Colin. "Israel and the Palestinians: What Are Alternatives to a Two-state Solution?" BBC News. February 17, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39002001.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, Http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/un242.asp (United Nations Security Council November 22, 1967) (Avalon Project, Yale Law School: Lilian Goldman Law Library, Dist. file).