 |
al-Jabaliya Refugee Camp in northern Gaza after
Israeli bombing on October 31st |
Following the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israelis and Palestinian negotiators, the policy suggestions offered here, discussed later in this post, call for a two-state solution. The accords must be implemented after the current Israel-HAMAS War ends. What would this agreement look like? It would entail a peaceful (demilitarized) Palestinian state, occupying most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip living side by side with Israel. Both Israel and the Palestinian state would share Jerusalem as their capital. HAMAS is not a Palestinian nationalist organization What do I mean when I argue HAMAS is not Palestinian nationalist organization? Simply put, HAMAS, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, rejects the idea of democracy and nationalism. Aligned with Iran, Lebanon's Hizballah, and financed by Qatar, the so-called "Axis of Resistance," HAMAS seeks to create an Islamic state in the Middle East, echoing the goal of the Islamic state's so-called "Caliphate" which controlled much of Syria and Iraq from 2014 to 2019.
HAMAS' acronym denotes the Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat al-Muqawwama al-Islamiya). The term Palestinian is absent from its title. Its name stands in sharp contrast with the secular Palestine Liberation Organization which seeks to establish a democratic state in Palestine in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and has recognized Israel.
HAMAS, like other radical Islamists (often referred to as jihadis) states that God is the only source of mankind's laws. To vote on laws, as occurs in democratic states, is to contravene the Islamic religion. Further, the nation-state is a Western creation which seeks to divide and weaken the Muslim world. Thus, the all Muslim majority countries need to disavow secular nationalism and join to create a global Islamic umma, or political entity.
The core problem with the political system HAMAS' advocates is its rejection by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. In a poll conducted in July, 2023, 62% of Gazans rejected HAMAS's rule in Gaza. Because the organization is extremely repressive and tolerates no dissent, the poll undercounted the true number of Palestinians in Gaza who reject HAMAS rule.
Ironically, while HAMAS' popularity has grown among West Bank youth who have clashed with Israeli settlers, the Palestine Liberation Organization which controls the Palestine National Authority in the West Bank is the preferred form of rule by Gazans. With the horrors of Israel's bombing of Gaza, there is little doubt that HAMAS' popularity has reached a new low.
Three Palestines The Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem differ significantly from the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and from Israel's Palestinian citizens. Much of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is dominated by families, mostly Muslim but many Christian as well, who trace their roots back 100s of years in cities such as Jerusalem, Hebron (al-Khalil), Nazareth, Bethlehem, Ramallah and Jericho. Many of these families and highly educated and well-to-do.
The Gazans, on the other hand, are largely comprised of Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes along the Mediterranean and move south into the densely populated Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Most Palestinian Israelis are deeply sympathetic with their fellow compatriots in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. However, in many conversations I have had with these Israeli citizens, none expressed the desire to renounce their Israeli citizenship and become citizens of a newly established Palestinian state. Palestinian Israelis, 20% of Israel's population, resent their second class status but prefer the political freedoms and education and employment opportunities they enjoy in Israel.
Overcoming historical amnesia: Arab-Israeli wars Most of the world lacks understanding of the Palestinian conflict. Simply put, it is a dispute between two people over one piece of land. To solve that problem, each party to the conflict must be able to exercise its legitimate rights to territorial sovereignty, political stability and prosperity.
After World War I, the newly formed League of Nations awarded the two most powerful colonial powers, Great Britain and France, "mandates" (colonial control) over territories formerly part of the now defeated Ottoman Empire. Britain received a 30 year Mandate in Palestine during which time its task was to "teach" the local populace how to become and administer a modern-nation-state.
With the end of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1948, the newly formed United Nations voted to approve Resolution 181 in November 1947 which divided Palestine into Palestinian and Jewish states. Neither the Arab Palestinian population nor the surrounding Arab states accepted the UN resolution. Once Israel declared itself an independent state on May 14, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq invaded Palestine.
The war did not go well for the Arab armies. They had been sent into battle not to help the Palestinians but rather to prop up weak governments, especially the Egyptian monarchy, and to seize land designated as part of the UN mandated Palestinian state. To call the Arab forces "armies" requires a stretch of imagination. They possessed limited and often defective arms and should be more accurately described as a glorified local police force. They lacked the capacity to conduct a military campaign beyond their national borders.
Zionist forces, on the other hand, had better training and motivation and did not suffer from lengthy supply lines. In contrast to the Arab armies, the newly constituted Israeli army was much more egalitarian in terms of the relationship between officers and enlisted fighters and ideologically unified. Some members had experienced combat in WWII. It later became clear that the new Israeli government had been in contact with King Abdullah of Jordan whose army was led by a British officer, Sir John Glubb.
Commenting on Iraq's army which fought under Jordanian command (both Iraq and Jordan were at the time ruled by Hashimite monarchies), Iraqi General 'Abd al-Karim Qasim indicated that, despite making significant gains against Israeli forces, Glubb Pasha told his Jordanian and Iraqi forces to cease fighting when they reached the city of Hebron (al-Khalil) in the West Bank.
Qasim asked why their military advantage was not being pursed but received no answer. He later concluded that Jordan's monarch King Abdullah had cut a deal with Israel to seize Palestinian land which it later did when annexing the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the 1948 war ended in a truce.
In 1952, a group of Egyptian officers overthrew the monarchy of Kinq Faruq. The monarchy, which was established in the early 1800s by an Ottoman officer, Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, was despised by Egyptians. It was highly corrupt and seen as subservient to Great Britain.
In 1882, British troops invaded Egypt, ostensibly to assure that the Ottoman Viceroy Ismael repay the bonds which Egypt had contracted with European banks to build the Suez Canal. It also helped suppress an army uprising where mid-level Egyptian army officers sought to rid the country of corrupt foreign rule, namely the Muhammad Ali dynasty.
European powers had pressured the Khedive to build the Suez Canal which placed severe constraints on Egypt's finances. There was no Western banking system in the Middle East and thus the interest rates charged on the bonds issued by Western banks were exorbitant. When British forces invaded Egypt, the real purpose was to gain control of the recently constructed Suez Canal, insuring their access via the Canal to the East India Company which exercised control over India and the South Asian continent.
When Great Britain invaded Egypt in 1882, it promised its troops would leave after several months. This promise was disingenuous as British forces remained in Egypt and forced the Egyptian monarchy to sign a lease on the Suez Canal which would expire in 1964. Throughout the period leading up to the 1952 coup d'etat, Britain played an outsize role in Egyptian politics.
How did this history affect the Arab-Israeli dispute? The 1952 Egyptian coup was caused by the anger of the army at its defeat in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It did not reflect anti-Israeli attitudes because Egypt had had an ambiguous relationship to the Arab world to that point, considering itself a unique country given its lengthy historical heritage, and thus unbeholden to any other culture.
After the 1952 coup, President Gamal Abdel Nasser (Jamal 'Abd al-Nasir) focused exclusively on consolidating his power against Egypt's powerful Muslim Brotherhood which tried to assassinate him in 1954. Although no friend of the Jewish state, Israel wasn't on the Egyptian military regime's political radar screen.
Nationalist pressure had been building to expel the British from the Suez Canal during the 1950s prior to its lease expiration in 1964. Bowing to this pressure, which included violent confrontation between Muslim Brothers and other nationalists with British troops along the Canal, Nasser decided to nationalize it in July 1956.
Great Britain organized what became the Tripartite Invasion of Egypt in October 1956 - the second Arab-Israeli War. British Prime Minister Anthony Eden sought France's assistance. France, like Britain, wanted to revive its colonial influence in the Middle East and thought Nasser was arming Algerian guerrillas in their independence struggle against France. Israel, which sought access to the Suez Canal, was also invited to join the coalition.
Israel began the attack on Egypt in October 1956. British and France forces soon joined the invasion. In a short time, Egyptian forces were defeated. However, the tripartite victory was a pyrrhic one. The United States and the Soviet Union, concerned that Great Britain and France sought to reassert their power in the Middle East, organized a United Nations Security Council vote which forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw from Egypt.
Nasser emerged a hero from the 1956 war. Encouraged by this success, he soon began espousing a Pan-Arab ideology and overt hostility to Israel. In 1958, Egypt joined with Syria to form the United Arab Republic. His new Pan Arab ideology was reflected in the change of Egypt's name from the Republic of Egypt to the United Arab Republic, and in other aspects of Egyptian society, such as the Egypt Air becoming the United Arab Airlines. Egypt and Israel had now become serious enemies as Nasser increased support for the Palestinian cause.
In 1967, Nasser began to be criticized for not forcefully supporting the Palestinian cause. To create the illusion of support for the Palestinians, he removed the United Nations peacekeeping force along the Egyptian-Israeli border, which had been put in place after the 1956 war, and declared that the Gulf of Aqaba was now closed to Israeli shipping. This closure was meaningless because Egypt didn't have the ability to prevent Israeli ships from entering the Gulf. Meanwhile, Nasser sent a high level delegation to Washington to inform Lyndon Johnson administration that he was not going to attack Israel.
Israel, however, used Nasser's moves and accompanying harsh anti-Israeli rhetoric as an excuse to attack Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces on July 5, 1967. Its well planned military campaign quickly defeated Arab forces. Egypt's army had not been put on a war footing. Indeed, the air force high command had been at a Cairo party the night before the attack. The war ended in 6 days, humiliating Nasser and placing Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Syria's Golan Heights under Israeli control.
Palestinians realized after the 1967 debacle that Arab nations would not be coming to their rescue. The Palestine Liberation Organization, and its dominant member, Fatah, increased its policy of armed struggle. Attacks launched from Jordan led to severe counter-measures by Israel. In 1970, the so-called Black September, Jordan's King Hussein, fearful for his monarchy, ordered the army to expel Palestinian forces from the country.
Moving to south Lebanon, an extremely mountainous region with few roads, Palestinian guerillas began to attack Israel from the north. In 1982, ostensibly to destroy Palestinian bases in south Lebanon, Israeli forces reached the outskirts of Beirut. This advance, which sought to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization in Beirut, was far beyond the 35 miles that General Ariel Sharon had informed Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would be the distance the Israeli army would penetrate Lebanon.
With Israeli forces in control of the area surrounding Beirut, right-wing Christian militias, opposed to a Palestinian presence in Lebanon, attacked the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in September, 1982, killing over 3000 Palestinians and Shi'a Arabs during a 3 day period. Because the Israeli army could have prevented the attack, General Ariel Sharon was blamed for the deaths. The massacres spawned a new Israeli movement, Peace Now (Shalom Achshav), which organized large demonstrations against the war. Ultimately, the invasion of Lebanon brought down Mehachem Begin's government.
Perhaps the most consequential war after the June 1967 war was the Arab-Israeli War of October 1973. Egyptian and Syrian forces began a joint attack across the Suez Canal and in the Golan Heights during the Jewish celebration of You Kippur, catching the Israeli army completely off guard. Israeli soldiers captured by the Egyptian army created an image of Arab military success unseen to date. Nevertheless, the Israeli army was able to regroup and ultimately win the war by ousting Syrian forces from the Golan Heights and penetrating the Egyptian Delta.
The 1973 War ended in a number of positive outcomes. The Camp David Accords of 1978 led Israel to withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Egypt became the first state to recognize Israel, followed by Jordan in 1994. It can be argued that these developments set a precedent for the Abraham Accords, concluded in 2020, which led Bahrayn and the United Arab Emirates to establish diplomatic realtions with Israel followed by Morocco and Sudan as well.
Revenge and the Violent Tit-for Tat Throughout the period after 1948, Palestinians saw no progress towards establishing an independent state as promised by the United Nations in November, 1947. During the 1970s, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which were illegal under international law. Large numbers of Palestinians displaced in 1948 and then more in 1967 saw little hope in the future. This hopelessness motivated Palestinian youth to join extremist organizations which attacked Israelis inside and outside Israel.
In May of 1972, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) recruited 3 members of the Red Army to attack Lod (now David Ben Gurion) Airport, killing 26 people and wounding 80. In September 1972, Palestinian gunmen from a faction called Black September attacked the quarters of the Israeli team at the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany. Eleven athletes died as well as 5 Black September attackers.
During the 1970s, a number of commercial planes were hijacked by the PFLP to free Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and highlight the Palestinian cause. Subsequent attacks on Israeli civilians in restaurants and buses and Israeli West Bank settlements further hardened attitudes in Israel against agreeing to establish an independent Palestinian state. Meanwhile, Israeli operatives from Mossad (Israel's equivalent ot the CIA) assassinated Palestinian leaders in Lebanon and elsewhere in revenge.
Israel became concerned in the 1970s when mayors were elected in West Bank cities who were supporters of the PLO. In retrospect, Israel followed a flawed and counter-productive policy of supporting Islamists opposed to the secular and leftist PLO. Viewing them as religious Muslims primarily concerned with studying the Qur'an, successive Israeli governments laid the basis for the rise of HAMAS by supporting its founder, the late blind shaykh Ahmad Yasin. When the PLO finally agreed to recognize Israel in 1990, radical Islamists, such as HAMAS vowed to keep up the struggle to eliminate what they call "the Zionist entity." How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas.
Israeli- Palestine relations post-2000 When the 1993 Oslo Accords weren't implemented and Israeli politics moved to the right, especially under governments where Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister, settlements in the West Bank expanded and efforts were made to weaken the Palestine National Authority, controlled by Fatah, to avoid having to establish an independent Palestinian state and realize a two-state solution.
Once Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, elections held in 2006 placed HAMAS in control, largely because the PLO's Fatah organization lacked historical roots in the region. After the election, PLO members of the Gazan parliament were killed, often by HAMAS members throwing them off the top of the parliament building. Other PLO members fled Gaza in fear and HAMAS was now in complete control. No elections have been held in Gaza since 2006.
Rather than trying to undermine Gaza, Israeli governments allowed Qatar, a supporter of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups, to donate large amounts of funds to Gaza which only strengthened HAMAS control. Some Gazan residents were allowed to work in southern Israel and elsewhere, especially in the agricultural sector.
At the same time that HAMAS was consolidating its hold over Gaza, and ending elections, a new and powerful movement, Hizballah (Party of God) was developing among Shi'a who comprise the majority of the population of southern Lebanon. Angered at the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon from 1982 until Israel withdrew in 2000, the Shi'a supported Hizballah which became a new supporter of the Palestinian cause.
With military and financial support from Iran, which became the so-called "champion" of "liberating Jerusalem," Hizballah's attacks on northern Israel led to another war in 2006. Hizballah rockets rained down on Israeli towns and villages forcing a large scale evacuation of civilians to areas farther to the south. The war ended with a large scale destruction of southern Lebanon, but not the defeat of Hizballah.
A solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict - the need to end the cycle of violence and revenge. There is only one way to end the Israel-Palestine conflict and that is to enact the Oslo Accords negotiated in secret between Israeli and Palestinian representatives in Norway in 1993. Although the Accords failed to mention an independent Palestinian state, that was the assumption underlying the Accords. I Have Never Been to This Israel Before
Establishing an independent Palestinian state will require a strong coordinated international effort. In addition to Israel and the Palestinians, the United States, the European Union and Saudi Arabia will need to play major roles. Pressure will be required to force both parties to the negotiating table. It is in the international community's interest to begin peace negotiations once the current HAMAS-Israel war ends. Risk of a Wider Middle East War Threatens a ‘Fragile’ World Economy
First and foremost, Israelis will need to vote Benjamin Netanyahu and his current far-right cabinet out of office. As of this writing, Netanyahu enjoys a 20% approval rate among Israelis. After an independent commission reviews the disastrous security failure which enabled HAMAS terrorists to slaughter Israelis, Netanyahu and his far right supporters will constitute even greater tarnished political goods.
Because the United States will face opposition from the right wing of the Republican Party and Christian evangelicals if it tries to pressure Israel to establish an independent Palestinian state, Saudi Arabia will be needed to play a central role in support of the two-state solution.
In 2022, the Israeli economy was ranked by the OECD as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Now Israel's economy is predicted to shrink 10% during the remainder of 2023. A number of firms in Israel's tech industry had already been leaving Israel due to Netanyahu's campaign to strip Israel's Supreme Court of its power and centralize control of the government in the Knesset's majority coalition. Israel economy grew 6.5% in 2022, seen near 3% in 2023
The expected investment from the United Arab Emirates after the Abraham Accords and the financial benefits of officially establishing diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia are now on hold. With 360,000 men and women mobilized for military duty during the current war with HAMAS, many employees are no longer reporting for work in Israeli companies. Ultra-orthodox men don't serve in the military and lack the professional skills to fill the jobs lost while IDF soldiers are in the front line. ‘Start-Up Nation’ Is Tested as Israel’s Reservists Leave Their Desks
Agricultural workers from Thailand have left the country and large numbers of civilians have been evacuated from the southern and northern parts of Israel. As an Israeli colleague in Tel Aviv told me recently, foreign investment is drying up. Clearly, Israel will be hurt economically by the war with HAMAS.
Saudi Arabia wants access to high end American arms, nuclear power technology and a defense treaty to assure it protection from Iran. Possessing one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds, and a desire to reduce its dependence on the United States, and recently turning to China for economic development assistance, the United States has every incentive to accommodate the kingdom's goals. China and Saudi Arabia are getting closer. Should the US be worried?
Here's where a three way accord could lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The United States would meet Saudi Arabia's needs but with the proviso that it establish formal ties with Israel. Israel, for its part, would receive a large influx of Saudi investment designed to link emerging Saudi tech firms with Israeli tech firms, which are among the most advanced in the world.
Israel would be flush with funds and Saudi Arabia could make a major leap forward in implementing Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman's Vision 2030 which seeks to diversify the Saudi economy away from dependence on oil. If the UAE joined a Saudi-Israeli technology and financial nexus, that partnership could become one of the most powerful in the world.
However, Israel would have to agree to establish a Palestinian state, granting Palestinians the right to have East Jerusalem as their shared capital with Israel and receive land in the Negev Desert in exchange for allowing settlements near Jerusalem to remain under Israeli control.
A new Palestinian leadership would need to replace the corrupt and inept administration of the Palestine National Authority (PNA) currently run by President Mahmoud Abbas, who is reviled by most West Bank Palestinians. Returning the former PNA prime minister, Salam Fayyad, to office, a Palestinian leader who is highly respected for his competence and lack of corruption, both among Palestinians and the international community, would lay a solid foundation for a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace. (Among his bona fides, Fayyad has been a Distinguished Visiting Scholar in Foreign Affairs at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs).
Israel and the new Palestinian state could work together to prevent the return of HAMAS or other radical Islamist groups to Gaza and the new Palestinian state. Members of Israel's highly educated Palestinian citizenry (20% of Israeli university students are Palestinian Israelis) could help to build the new Palestinian state and provide an important professional and cultural bridge for Israel to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Arab states.
In summary, the two-state solution would allow the Israel-Palestinian dispute to be settled once and for all. The road to a settlement would not be an easy one. But it would remove one of the greatest ongoing threats to international political stability and security. Most important of all, a peace treaty would end the cycle of violence which has plagued the Israeli and Palestinian people for the past 85 years.
