As far as historical and geo-political analyses go, this one has to be the most complex. Hence I will employ the "explain this to a six year old" methodology to help illustrate what's going on in the Holy Land.
Son: Dad, can you explain what's happening in Israel and Palestine, and why everyone there seems to be so angry with each other?
Dad: Sure. What if I told you that the nation of Israel didn't even exist 60 years ago. The legal concept of "Jewish lands" began in earnest when a fund was set-up in the early 1900's to purchase land in Palestine. When the British left the region in 1948, the fund really went to town and tripled their land holdings in the following two years.
Son: Oh, so it's like Monopoly?
Dad: Well, yes. Except that a lot of the other players didn't turn up. You see, many of the landowners had fled Palestine, and their lands were "sold" on their behalf.
Son: What happened next?
Dad: A series of wars with Arab nations, which Israel mostly won, gave it control over the rest of Palestine, and parts of Egypt and Syria.
Son: Oh, so it's like Risk?
Dad: Well yes, but the Israeli's secured USA's support early on, and used US technology and political leverage to their great advantage.
Son: Ok, what happened to all the lands conquered by Israel?
Dad: They don't really need all this land, so they are exchanging it for concessions from their neighbours and the international community. It's like trading what you have but don't need, for something you didn't have but really want.
Son: Oh, so it's like when I trade Pokemon cards with my friends?
Dad: Yes! But in this case, you happen to control the deck of cards.
Son: Wow... but isn't this unfair?
Dad: Some say it is. If you look at the evolution of Israel in the past 60 years, you can either call it the most brilliant strategic colonisation in recent history, or the most illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign territory.
Son: I see. Is that why everyone there is so mad?
Dad: Exactly! The Israelis believe in the former, and its Arab neighbours believe in the latter.
Son: Can't they just make up and be friends?
Dad: Son, that's a story that I'll leave to you to tell your children. Or grandchildren.
Now for the grown-up version. Note that I try as far as possible to be objective, but at certain points, differing accounts from opposite sides require judgement calls to be made and my own opinion to be put forward. Due to the emotional and polarising nature of the subject, let me state upfront that my intention is not to offend but only to observe. The article below represents the conclusions I have reached after extensive research across a broad spectrum of credible sources.
How did the state of Israel materialise out of thin air i.e. how did a largely immigrant population of Jews carve out a nation of their own in the middle of an Arab-dominated region? And most incredibly, how did they defend and expand this territory against all odds and amidst tremendous hostility from all neighbouring countries?
Well, to start at the very beginning, the Jews simply believe that the land of Israel, or in biblical terms "Canaan", is rightfully theirs, as promised by God to the descendants of Abraham. Of course, the Muslims (and Christians) will contest that they come from the same family tree too. In the Hebrew bible (also partly reflected in the Christian bible), Moses led the Jews out of slavery and oppression in pharaonic Egypt, via the parting of the Red Sea and his receiving of the Commandments on Mount Sinai, towards the Promised Land. And after 40 years of wandering the wilderness, he died within sight of Canaan, leaving it to his protege Joshua to conquer the natives and deliver the rest of the prophesy. This was around 1,200 BC.
And thusly did the Hebrews re-settle in modern-day Israel. Wait a minute. Re-settle? Well, yes, because Abraham and his family had abandoned Canaan 1,000 years before this to migrate to Egypt due to drought and hostile conditions. Of course, there are numerous and jarring inconsistencies between the biblical narrative and documented history. But supposing we take the biblical account in good faith, the Hebrews voluntarily left Canaan, left it to the locals, returned 1,000 years later, decimated the native population and claimed the land as their own. They maintain this claim till this day, 3,000 years on.
Surely then, the original inhabitants of Canaan have first claim? While Canaan has been occupied since the Stone Age, most historians agree that it was the Akkadians who incorporated Canaan into part of their empire in 2,300BC. The Akkadians subsequently fell, breaking up into what would later form the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. The ancestry of these people is long and protracted, but one thing is clear - they weren't Hebrews. So from a purely third party perspective, I'm not so sure the Jews can say they are the rightful owners of this land other than making reference to the prophecy mentioned in their holy book.
The Babylonians exiled the Jews, after destroying Jerusalem in 586BC, bringing Jewish sovereignty to an end after perhaps 600 years of formal occupation of Canaan. Then the Persians came, and in 539BC, Cyrus The Great allowed the Jews to return to the territory. 200 years later, the Greeks would take over, and they named the area "Palaistine", a term which has stuck until today. But it was the Romans who delivered the coup de grace when they crucified Jesus and permanently expelled the Jews in 70 AD and they remained scattered for the next 2,000 years.
Enter the Arab-Islamic Empire in 636 AD where Palestine was conquered as part of the Muslim Conquest of Syria. And it would remain under Islamic rule until the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the 20th Century. There was, of course, the brief interlude of Christian Crusader rule in Jerusalem from 1099 until 1187 when they were routed by Saladin's army. The Christians did indeed wipe out the inhabitants of Jerusalem when they invaded, but subsequently turned tolerant and (mostly) allowed people of all faiths to remain in the Holy Land during their 100-year rule. So the Arabs' point of view is that they have occupied Palestine, forming the majority of its population, for the past 1,500 years; far longer than the 600 or so years which the Hebrews had continuously occupied Canaan. It is difficult to dispute this.
So how then was modern Jewish state of Israel formed, considering the historical backdrop of Arab-Islamic domination? This is where it gets really interesting.
It was the Ottoman Empire which allowed the influx of Jewish immigrants into Palestine in the late 19th century. From around 1880 to the eve of the First World War in 1914, the Jewish population had increased from 15,000 to 39,000. Not huge numbers, considering that the Muslim and Christian populations at the time were about 600,000 and 80,000 respectively. At this juncture, the Jewish National Fund was set-up with the objective of procuring land for the settlement of the Jewish people, but progress was slow at first. When the British took over from the Ottomans, they supported the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Note the wording of Britain's Balfour Declaration in 1917 was very carefully considered - they used the word "home" instead of "state", not wanting to risk an Arab outrage at the time. There was opposition from the Arabs in Palestine to this initial concession, but it was relatively mild.
It wasn't until the build-up to the Second World War where things really started to get out of hand. As Hitler's Nazi ideologies began to gain momentum in Germany in the 1930's, there was a sudden urgency to establish a safe haven for the Jewish people. Armed conflict between the Jewish and Muslim quarters of Palestine escalated during this time with both sides committing atrocities. At the same time, the population of Jews had risen five times to 200,000 from just 15 years prior. The British response was to propose, via the Peel Plan in 1937, a two-state solution (20% land for the Jews and 80% for the Arabs) which was largely accepted by the Jews but roundly rejected by the Arabs. In the Arabs' eyes, the Jews had morphed from immigrants to refugees to a people wanting their own nation. On "Arab land" no less.
By 1947, the Jewish population had ballooned to 600,000 and the British, after WW2, were losing the political and financial will to contain this impending time-bomb in a region far removed from more pressing domestic issues. Their view was to seek a swift exit. The nascent UN was called-in to mediate and they proposed a Partition Plan which gave the Jews 56% of Palestine and the Arabs 44% while Jerusalem would remain under UN administration. Needless to say the Jews i.e. Zionists were elated and the Arabs infuriated. At the time, the Jews had legal claim of only 6% of the land. The UN General Assembly eventually approved the proposal in November 1947 with a 33 to 13 vote, with 10 abstentions. In retrospect, it is clear that the Zionist lobby in the US sought, and successfully secured the political arm-wrangling applied on several US allies needed to secure the two-thirds majority vote.
This was a major turning point in Israeli-Arab relations even though UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Palestine descended into a vicious civil war between its Jewish and Arab occupants. When the British pulled-out at midnight on 14th May 1948, the Zionists proclaimed independence and the Arab nations invaded the following day. The individual events of this war are too many to recount, but the outcome shocked the world. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), mainly composed of hastily trained civilians not only managed to hold their ground, they made territorial gains against the vastly superior and much better equipped Arab forces. Several reasons have been attributed to this, including the timely arrival of massive arms shipments from Europe and the US, and the Arabs' woefully disorganised approach - five nations, five armies, no central command.
But at the end of the day, it was the tenacity and self-sacrifice of the Israeli people which made all the difference. The IDF had 30,000 soldiers when the war began, and over 110,000 soldiers at the end of the war a year later - largely mobilised from its civilian population and a steady stream of immigrants (many of whom were WW2 veteran soldiers). The five Arab nations (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), in contrast, were only able to muster a force of 60,000 (at its peak) despite having a combined population over 30 times larger than Israel's.
The human cost of the war was devastating. Aside from the 20,000 soldier and civilian casualties on both sides, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced overnight. They remain refugees to this day, with no "right of return". Israel called the 1948 war their "War of Independence"; the Arab world would later term it as "The Catastrophe", reflecting the contrast in sentiments on opposite sides after the smoke had cleared. At the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78% of Palestine, from 56% before the war. It was a huge blow for Palestinian Arabs and the Arab nations, and remains the single most decisive event in Israel's nationhood. The Arab nations, although widely seen as having lost the war, actually gained territory - Jordan gained the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and Egypt gained the Gaza Strip. Whether this was the real intention behind their invasion of Palestine in the first place is a matter of debate. At the end of the day, the real losers were the Arab people of Palestine, who had suddenly lost all prospect of a home nation.
Son: Dad, can you explain what's happening in Israel and Palestine, and why everyone there seems to be so angry with each other?
Dad: Sure. What if I told you that the nation of Israel didn't even exist 60 years ago. The legal concept of "Jewish lands" began in earnest when a fund was set-up in the early 1900's to purchase land in Palestine. When the British left the region in 1948, the fund really went to town and tripled their land holdings in the following two years.
Son: Oh, so it's like Monopoly?
Dad: Well, yes. Except that a lot of the other players didn't turn up. You see, many of the landowners had fled Palestine, and their lands were "sold" on their behalf.
Son: What happened next?
Dad: A series of wars with Arab nations, which Israel mostly won, gave it control over the rest of Palestine, and parts of Egypt and Syria.
Son: Oh, so it's like Risk?
Dad: Well yes, but the Israeli's secured USA's support early on, and used US technology and political leverage to their great advantage.
Son: Ok, what happened to all the lands conquered by Israel?
Dad: They don't really need all this land, so they are exchanging it for concessions from their neighbours and the international community. It's like trading what you have but don't need, for something you didn't have but really want.
Son: Oh, so it's like when I trade Pokemon cards with my friends?
Dad: Yes! But in this case, you happen to control the deck of cards.
Son: Wow... but isn't this unfair?
Dad: Some say it is. If you look at the evolution of Israel in the past 60 years, you can either call it the most brilliant strategic colonisation in recent history, or the most illegitimate invasion and occupation of a foreign territory.
Son: I see. Is that why everyone there is so mad?
Dad: Exactly! The Israelis believe in the former, and its Arab neighbours believe in the latter.
Son: Can't they just make up and be friends?
Dad: Son, that's a story that I'll leave to you to tell your children. Or grandchildren.
Now for the grown-up version. Note that I try as far as possible to be objective, but at certain points, differing accounts from opposite sides require judgement calls to be made and my own opinion to be put forward. Due to the emotional and polarising nature of the subject, let me state upfront that my intention is not to offend but only to observe. The article below represents the conclusions I have reached after extensive research across a broad spectrum of credible sources.
How did the state of Israel materialise out of thin air i.e. how did a largely immigrant population of Jews carve out a nation of their own in the middle of an Arab-dominated region? And most incredibly, how did they defend and expand this territory against all odds and amidst tremendous hostility from all neighbouring countries?
Well, to start at the very beginning, the Jews simply believe that the land of Israel, or in biblical terms "Canaan", is rightfully theirs, as promised by God to the descendants of Abraham. Of course, the Muslims (and Christians) will contest that they come from the same family tree too. In the Hebrew bible (also partly reflected in the Christian bible), Moses led the Jews out of slavery and oppression in pharaonic Egypt, via the parting of the Red Sea and his receiving of the Commandments on Mount Sinai, towards the Promised Land. And after 40 years of wandering the wilderness, he died within sight of Canaan, leaving it to his protege Joshua to conquer the natives and deliver the rest of the prophesy. This was around 1,200 BC.
And thusly did the Hebrews re-settle in modern-day Israel. Wait a minute. Re-settle? Well, yes, because Abraham and his family had abandoned Canaan 1,000 years before this to migrate to Egypt due to drought and hostile conditions. Of course, there are numerous and jarring inconsistencies between the biblical narrative and documented history. But supposing we take the biblical account in good faith, the Hebrews voluntarily left Canaan, left it to the locals, returned 1,000 years later, decimated the native population and claimed the land as their own. They maintain this claim till this day, 3,000 years on.
Surely then, the original inhabitants of Canaan have first claim? While Canaan has been occupied since the Stone Age, most historians agree that it was the Akkadians who incorporated Canaan into part of their empire in 2,300BC. The Akkadians subsequently fell, breaking up into what would later form the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. The ancestry of these people is long and protracted, but one thing is clear - they weren't Hebrews. So from a purely third party perspective, I'm not so sure the Jews can say they are the rightful owners of this land other than making reference to the prophecy mentioned in their holy book.
The Babylonians exiled the Jews, after destroying Jerusalem in 586BC, bringing Jewish sovereignty to an end after perhaps 600 years of formal occupation of Canaan. Then the Persians came, and in 539BC, Cyrus The Great allowed the Jews to return to the territory. 200 years later, the Greeks would take over, and they named the area "Palaistine", a term which has stuck until today. But it was the Romans who delivered the coup de grace when they crucified Jesus and permanently expelled the Jews in 70 AD and they remained scattered for the next 2,000 years.
Enter the Arab-Islamic Empire in 636 AD where Palestine was conquered as part of the Muslim Conquest of Syria. And it would remain under Islamic rule until the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the 20th Century. There was, of course, the brief interlude of Christian Crusader rule in Jerusalem from 1099 until 1187 when they were routed by Saladin's army. The Christians did indeed wipe out the inhabitants of Jerusalem when they invaded, but subsequently turned tolerant and (mostly) allowed people of all faiths to remain in the Holy Land during their 100-year rule. So the Arabs' point of view is that they have occupied Palestine, forming the majority of its population, for the past 1,500 years; far longer than the 600 or so years which the Hebrews had continuously occupied Canaan. It is difficult to dispute this.
So how then was modern Jewish state of Israel formed, considering the historical backdrop of Arab-Islamic domination? This is where it gets really interesting.
It was the Ottoman Empire which allowed the influx of Jewish immigrants into Palestine in the late 19th century. From around 1880 to the eve of the First World War in 1914, the Jewish population had increased from 15,000 to 39,000. Not huge numbers, considering that the Muslim and Christian populations at the time were about 600,000 and 80,000 respectively. At this juncture, the Jewish National Fund was set-up with the objective of procuring land for the settlement of the Jewish people, but progress was slow at first. When the British took over from the Ottomans, they supported the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Note the wording of Britain's Balfour Declaration in 1917 was very carefully considered - they used the word "home" instead of "state", not wanting to risk an Arab outrage at the time. There was opposition from the Arabs in Palestine to this initial concession, but it was relatively mild.
It wasn't until the build-up to the Second World War where things really started to get out of hand. As Hitler's Nazi ideologies began to gain momentum in Germany in the 1930's, there was a sudden urgency to establish a safe haven for the Jewish people. Armed conflict between the Jewish and Muslim quarters of Palestine escalated during this time with both sides committing atrocities. At the same time, the population of Jews had risen five times to 200,000 from just 15 years prior. The British response was to propose, via the Peel Plan in 1937, a two-state solution (20% land for the Jews and 80% for the Arabs) which was largely accepted by the Jews but roundly rejected by the Arabs. In the Arabs' eyes, the Jews had morphed from immigrants to refugees to a people wanting their own nation. On "Arab land" no less.
By 1947, the Jewish population had ballooned to 600,000 and the British, after WW2, were losing the political and financial will to contain this impending time-bomb in a region far removed from more pressing domestic issues. Their view was to seek a swift exit. The nascent UN was called-in to mediate and they proposed a Partition Plan which gave the Jews 56% of Palestine and the Arabs 44% while Jerusalem would remain under UN administration. Needless to say the Jews i.e. Zionists were elated and the Arabs infuriated. At the time, the Jews had legal claim of only 6% of the land. The UN General Assembly eventually approved the proposal in November 1947 with a 33 to 13 vote, with 10 abstentions. In retrospect, it is clear that the Zionist lobby in the US sought, and successfully secured the political arm-wrangling applied on several US allies needed to secure the two-thirds majority vote.
This was a major turning point in Israeli-Arab relations even though UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Palestine descended into a vicious civil war between its Jewish and Arab occupants. When the British pulled-out at midnight on 14th May 1948, the Zionists proclaimed independence and the Arab nations invaded the following day. The individual events of this war are too many to recount, but the outcome shocked the world. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), mainly composed of hastily trained civilians not only managed to hold their ground, they made territorial gains against the vastly superior and much better equipped Arab forces. Several reasons have been attributed to this, including the timely arrival of massive arms shipments from Europe and the US, and the Arabs' woefully disorganised approach - five nations, five armies, no central command.
But at the end of the day, it was the tenacity and self-sacrifice of the Israeli people which made all the difference. The IDF had 30,000 soldiers when the war began, and over 110,000 soldiers at the end of the war a year later - largely mobilised from its civilian population and a steady stream of immigrants (many of whom were WW2 veteran soldiers). The five Arab nations (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), in contrast, were only able to muster a force of 60,000 (at its peak) despite having a combined population over 30 times larger than Israel's.
The human cost of the war was devastating. Aside from the 20,000 soldier and civilian casualties on both sides, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced overnight. They remain refugees to this day, with no "right of return". Israel called the 1948 war their "War of Independence"; the Arab world would later term it as "The Catastrophe", reflecting the contrast in sentiments on opposite sides after the smoke had cleared. At the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78% of Palestine, from 56% before the war. It was a huge blow for Palestinian Arabs and the Arab nations, and remains the single most decisive event in Israel's nationhood. The Arab nations, although widely seen as having lost the war, actually gained territory - Jordan gained the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and Egypt gained the Gaza Strip. Whether this was the real intention behind their invasion of Palestine in the first place is a matter of debate. At the end of the day, the real losers were the Arab people of Palestine, who had suddenly lost all prospect of a home nation.
 |  |  |
| The division of territory in Palestine proposed by the British Peel Plan in 1937. 20% Jewish, 80% Arab | The United Nations Partition Plan in 1948, just before the Israel-Arab War. 56% Jewish, 44% Arab | Territorial distribution after the Israel-Arab War of 1948. 78% Jewish, 22% Arab |
Graphic from http://history-of-israel.org/
The aftermath of the Israel-Arab War of 1948 centred on three broad themes: 1. The Jewish National Fund "purchased", or more accurately, took possession of vast tracts of land from absentee Arab landlords who had fled Palestine during the war. 2. A massive exodus of Jews living in Arab nations to Israel and other countries due to hostilities they faced in their former homes. 3. The new state of Israel and its people embarked on an exuberant phase of nation-building - the economy was transformed, vast numbers of immigrants were absorbed and the military was greatly strengthened. For the first few years, new Israel would live in a state of constant paranoia, fearful of a swift Arab reprisal.
But the anticipated large-scale Arab invasion never came. In fact it was Israel who became the aggressor in the two decades which followed. In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt as part of a British-French-Israeli effort to regain control of the Suez Canal after it had been nationalised by Egypt. International condemnation followed and the three countries pulled back. And in 1967, it was again Israel who initiated full-scale military actions against its neighbours. The resulting Six Day War saw Israel emerge victorious once more, this time with huge territorial gains i.e. the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank including Jerusalem from Jordan.
Now, there's a lot of debate out there on who intended what in the events preceding the Six Day War. Some say false intelligence from the Soviets indicating that Israel was about to invade Syria led to Egypt mobilising its troops in Sinai. Others say it was Israel's incursion into Jordan's West Bank to take-out PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) guerrillas which prompted the military build-up in Egypt. In any case, it was Israel's jets which first crossed the border, wiping out Egypt's entire airforce in a surprise (Israel claims pre-emptive) strike. After subsequently routing the Syrian airforce, Israel used their air superiority in the area to crush their opponents. The Arab armies didn't stand a chance when the IDF armoured divisions rolled-in. Conceding defeat in just six days, the Arab armies had collectively lost almost 20,000 soldiers vs less than 1,000 Israeli casualties.
But the anticipated large-scale Arab invasion never came. In fact it was Israel who became the aggressor in the two decades which followed. In 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt as part of a British-French-Israeli effort to regain control of the Suez Canal after it had been nationalised by Egypt. International condemnation followed and the three countries pulled back. And in 1967, it was again Israel who initiated full-scale military actions against its neighbours. The resulting Six Day War saw Israel emerge victorious once more, this time with huge territorial gains i.e. the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank including Jerusalem from Jordan.
Now, there's a lot of debate out there on who intended what in the events preceding the Six Day War. Some say false intelligence from the Soviets indicating that Israel was about to invade Syria led to Egypt mobilising its troops in Sinai. Others say it was Israel's incursion into Jordan's West Bank to take-out PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) guerrillas which prompted the military build-up in Egypt. In any case, it was Israel's jets which first crossed the border, wiping out Egypt's entire airforce in a surprise (Israel claims pre-emptive) strike. After subsequently routing the Syrian airforce, Israel used their air superiority in the area to crush their opponents. The Arab armies didn't stand a chance when the IDF armoured divisions rolled-in. Conceding defeat in just six days, the Arab armies had collectively lost almost 20,000 soldiers vs less than 1,000 Israeli casualties.
Israel's territories after the Six Day War.
Graphic from http://history-of-israel.org/
Graphic from http://history-of-israel.org/
Obviously this (second) humiliation didn't go down well with the Arabs. They were completely stupefied at how the little newly-founded nation of belligerent Jews repeatedly defied their collective might and perceived superiority. A period of soul-searching and military modernisation followed, and in 1973 it was the Egyptians and Syrians who struck first. This time, it was far from easy for Israel. A combination of intelligence failures and arrogance had failed to predict that Egypt would cross the Suez Canal into the Sinai Peninsula on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Egyptian troops advanced virtually unchallenged deep into Sinai before being repelled by Israeli counterattacks. In the Golan Heights, the Syrian troops also made significant gains before Israel responded decisively. After regaining the initiative, Israeli troops outmaneuvered the Egyptians and Syrians to advance within 100km of Cairo and 40km of Damascus.
At this point, all sides agreed to a ceasefire. Although Israel turned the tide eventually, the early victories for the Arab armies were major morale-boosters and erased some of the psychological trauma which resulted from the 1948 and 1967 thrashings. For the first time, the illusion of Israel's invincibility had been firmly and forcefully debunked. The Egyptians felt especially vindicated because they had regained control of the Suez Canal which had been closed since the 1967 war. And on Israel's part, they began to see their Arab neighbours as worthy opponents. A grudging mutual respect between Israel and the Arab nations would emerge from the ashes of war, and this uneasy status quo is maintained to this day.
The heavy casualties suffered by the Arab nations and Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 had drastically subdued the appetite for further full-blown military conflict on both sides. And if war was struck off the agenda, the path to peace, however fraught with uncertainty, could begin. A major milestone was reached when Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement in 1979 mediated by US President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. As a result, the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt, and Israeli PM Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat shared a Nobel Prize for their reconciliation efforts. Tragically, Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by extremists in Egypt who were outraged by Egypt's recognition of Israel. The Arab League suspended Egypt as a member state (from 1979 to 1989), reflecting widespread Arab dissatisfaction with Egypt's unilateral approach. The UN refused to accept the agreed peace framework on account that it did not include wider international participation, and representation from the PLO. And the situation was further complicated by a series of popular Arab uprisings or intifadas in Palestine in the late 80's and 90's.
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty did, however, set the stage for the gradual thawing of Arab-Israel relations. In 1993, Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat agreed to the Oslo Accords which laid the foundations for a mutually agreed two-state solution. In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace pact, and in 2002 Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab League, initiated a historic overture by offering Israel a peace deal which subsequently received support from 57 Arab and Muslim nations. And although the proposal was not accepted by Israel, it symbolised commitment from previously hostile Arab governments to see an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. From Israel's perspective, it represented an informal legitimisation of its right to exist as a nation.
Progress in the past decade, however, has been beset by outbreaks of violence especially in Gaza. There remain deep divisions within both Arab and Israeli societies on "the right outcome". For example, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, a hardcore Zionist all his life (and perhaps Israel's most brilliant military mind), had to abandon his own political party and set-up his own in order to push through unpopular plans for Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005. While the Arabs are committed to the peace proposal offered in 2002, they do not seem willing to make further concessions on the issues of the "right of return" of 3 million refugees and Israel's withdrawal to pre-1967 territorial lines. And most frustratingly, it does not appear that Israel is willing to compromise on these two "deal-breakers" either.
Still, the proposal, which remains valid today, remains Israel's best chance of a lasting peace. And it is not just peace with neighbouring Arabs, but peace with the entire Muslim world - 57 nations in all. It's hard to fathom how far the Arab and Muslim world has had to come to even consider making such an offer. After the Six Day War in 1967, the Arab League convened and unanimously cast-in-stone the famous "three no's" - No Peace, No Recognition and No Negotiations with Israel. The 2002 peace offering effectively and publicly reverses this previously thought unretractable statement.
In considering the peace proposal, Israel should remember the "original sin" that even its former leaders thought was unforgivable and unforgettable to the Arabs. The following is a statement made in private by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and its first PM, as documented by Nahum Goldman, founder and former longtime President of the World Jewish Congress:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
Well, the Arab leaders want to make peace. They want to make terms. And they are accepting Israel's right to exist. Personally, I think that they've come far enough. How far then, is Israel willing to go?
At this point, all sides agreed to a ceasefire. Although Israel turned the tide eventually, the early victories for the Arab armies were major morale-boosters and erased some of the psychological trauma which resulted from the 1948 and 1967 thrashings. For the first time, the illusion of Israel's invincibility had been firmly and forcefully debunked. The Egyptians felt especially vindicated because they had regained control of the Suez Canal which had been closed since the 1967 war. And on Israel's part, they began to see their Arab neighbours as worthy opponents. A grudging mutual respect between Israel and the Arab nations would emerge from the ashes of war, and this uneasy status quo is maintained to this day.
The heavy casualties suffered by the Arab nations and Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 had drastically subdued the appetite for further full-blown military conflict on both sides. And if war was struck off the agenda, the path to peace, however fraught with uncertainty, could begin. A major milestone was reached when Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement in 1979 mediated by US President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. As a result, the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt, and Israeli PM Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat shared a Nobel Prize for their reconciliation efforts. Tragically, Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by extremists in Egypt who were outraged by Egypt's recognition of Israel. The Arab League suspended Egypt as a member state (from 1979 to 1989), reflecting widespread Arab dissatisfaction with Egypt's unilateral approach. The UN refused to accept the agreed peace framework on account that it did not include wider international participation, and representation from the PLO. And the situation was further complicated by a series of popular Arab uprisings or intifadas in Palestine in the late 80's and 90's.
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty did, however, set the stage for the gradual thawing of Arab-Israel relations. In 1993, Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat agreed to the Oslo Accords which laid the foundations for a mutually agreed two-state solution. In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace pact, and in 2002 Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab League, initiated a historic overture by offering Israel a peace deal which subsequently received support from 57 Arab and Muslim nations. And although the proposal was not accepted by Israel, it symbolised commitment from previously hostile Arab governments to see an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. From Israel's perspective, it represented an informal legitimisation of its right to exist as a nation.
Progress in the past decade, however, has been beset by outbreaks of violence especially in Gaza. There remain deep divisions within both Arab and Israeli societies on "the right outcome". For example, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, a hardcore Zionist all his life (and perhaps Israel's most brilliant military mind), had to abandon his own political party and set-up his own in order to push through unpopular plans for Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005. While the Arabs are committed to the peace proposal offered in 2002, they do not seem willing to make further concessions on the issues of the "right of return" of 3 million refugees and Israel's withdrawal to pre-1967 territorial lines. And most frustratingly, it does not appear that Israel is willing to compromise on these two "deal-breakers" either.
Still, the proposal, which remains valid today, remains Israel's best chance of a lasting peace. And it is not just peace with neighbouring Arabs, but peace with the entire Muslim world - 57 nations in all. It's hard to fathom how far the Arab and Muslim world has had to come to even consider making such an offer. After the Six Day War in 1967, the Arab League convened and unanimously cast-in-stone the famous "three no's" - No Peace, No Recognition and No Negotiations with Israel. The 2002 peace offering effectively and publicly reverses this previously thought unretractable statement.
In considering the peace proposal, Israel should remember the "original sin" that even its former leaders thought was unforgivable and unforgettable to the Arabs. The following is a statement made in private by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and its first PM, as documented by Nahum Goldman, founder and former longtime President of the World Jewish Congress:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
Well, the Arab leaders want to make peace. They want to make terms. And they are accepting Israel's right to exist. Personally, I think that they've come far enough. How far then, is Israel willing to go?
