Category: Arab-Israeli Conflict

Attempts to cause harmony since 1948 between the Israelis and Arabs to have so far fizzled. Harmony talks can’t agree notwithstanding mediation from President Clinton. As of late viciousness has broken out once more. The Rival cases to Palestine is a long haul issue, which has continued for a considerable length of time. The Israelis guarantee that it is there land since god had guaranteed them the land to them in ‘The Bible’. The Arabs have a case for the land since they have been living there throughout the previous 13 centuries on the grounds that in about the seventh Century the Jews went to Europe. Jerusalem is additionally a long haul issue on the grounds that the Jews accept they should claim everything since Jesus Christ lectured in the city. Lord David made it his capital. Solomon additionally fabricated a sanctuary there and these individuals are on the whole critical to the Jews. “Solomon’s sanctuary is considerably increasingly imperative to Jews now since all there is left of it is the Western or Wailing Wall”. Individuals originate from a huge number of miles around to see it. “Middle Easterners accept that they ought to have some of Jerusalem on the grounds that in the city is the fantastic mosques of Al-Aqsa and the Golden Dome Mosque”. Muslims have a unique word for Jerusalem it is ‘Al-Quds’, which implies the Holy Place in Arabic.

The schools that the Arabs go to don’t show Arab History and they need to learn Hebrew, this is so they will feel they are not Arabians. Instruction in Arab schools additionally finishes at a beginning time, this would be so Arabs don’t show signs of improvement work and subsequently they won’t get as a lot of cash. The Arabs are likewise not permitted to speak to themselves. The Arab laborers are likewise paid not exactly the Israeli specialists are. So, overall the Israelis are treating the Arabs like the Nazis treated them. Since the Arabs don’t get numerous rights this causes struggle. The Intifada is a transient issue. “In December 1987 4 Arab Palestinians were murdered in a street mishap”. This was the beginning of the Intifada. Before this the gathering were just yelling out mottos. After the mishap the fights got bad. “The Israeli source says that Israeli warriors were assaulted with rocks, however progressively with blades and oil bombs”. The Israeli source additionally says that the Arabs didn’t permit the Israeli fighters into their towns and Arab younger students were urged to assault the Israelis, this is likely in light of the fact that there instruction stops at an early age. It says that the Israeli fighters just used plastic and elastic sort slugs and just in big cases they utilize live ammo, the utilization of ammo may make wars and individuals may need to move as a result of them.

The issue however now is that the PLO and Yasser Arafat are beginning to free control of a portion of the other Arab gatherings. Fanatics on the two sides are not ready to bargain tranquility on these standing. The firm stance Jews state that they won’t surrender to Arab psychological oppression and are not surrendering the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Extraordinary Palestinian Arabs guarantee that they are just getting small amounts of land and they will do assaults until they get more land.

The Israeli government won’t arrange Jerusalem Palestinian Arabs state there will be no closure to the contention except if they recapture the Arab half of Jerusalem back once more. With the 2 radical sides needing absolutely inverse things there will be constantly pressure between them, which may overflow into strife. By and large to me plainly Jerusalem is the most significant issue. This is in such a case that Jerusalem was sifted through there would most likely be no more savagery and a significant war would be stayed away from if Jerusalem were sifted through. The Refugee camps are likewise a significant issue to sift through in light of the fact that from the sources on the Refugee Camp it seems as though individuals are dealt with terrible there. I think most about different issues would get themselves straightened out in light of the fact that the PLO have said that if the Arab some portion of Jerusalem is offered back to them they would convey harmony.

Some may inquire as to why the center ought to be upon the Israeli-Palestinian clash rather than the Arab-Israeli clash. For a certain something, the last is an unmistakable contest, and, despite interdependence, a settlement of one isn’t really a goal of the other. For another, pressures in the Middle East are frequently brought about by Western crowds in terms of state relations, subsequently minimizing the complaints of the stateless Palestinian Arabs and introducing a slanted image of genuine chances. Why not represent the contention in terms of a Western-Arab one since Israel was made and has been continued by Western intervention in the Near East? Surely, why not a Western-Islamic clash? Either choice would change the composition of the discussion, moving concentration to an alternate arrangement of positions and interests.

Palestine and Israel have been locked in conflict for years. There is one key factor that plays a major role in whether or not Israel and Palestine can overcome the conflict and violence that they find themselves in. To overcome conflict individuals must go back to the root of it all in order to understand it and learn to empathize with each individual involved (The Guardian, 2019). For Israel and Palestine this means thinking back to the time of the holocaust as well as the beginning of the British mandate over the country in order to learn to appreciate the opposing perspectives they have (NY Times, 2019). Palestine and Israel have both developed into trauma-organized societies, violence has become a normal behavior and is now a cultural logic that is being pushed onto future generations (Eyad Hallaq, 2006). In a psychological study it has been found that the exposure of rocket attacks on teens in Israel has lead to them having an increasingly violent demeanor, therefore proving that violence begets more violence (The Daily Beast 2017). If Israel and Palestine are not able to return to the root of the conflict it has become obvious that the violence they are using will only continue as future generations are learning this to be a social norm (SBS 2019). The issue at hand is that people look to their leaders for guidance and as long as the leaders believe that the opposing side is not ready for peace, people will not question this ultimately pointless destruction of each other (NY Times, 2019).

The Gulf War was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Iraq’s leader wished to take control of the oil reserves that resided in Kuwait in order to expand Iraq’s power in the region (Britannica, 2019). This invasion shocked fellow Arab powers to call on the United States and other western nations to help intervene. Iraq inevitably lost the war and suffered enormous damage as did Kuwait (History, 2009)

The Six Day war is the third war from the Arab-Israeli conflict. This war stemmed from not one particular dispute, but instead from a series of events that heightened tension. Many disputes about the border were a significant spark for the start of this war. This war was brief and bloody as the Israel Defence forces launched airstrikes against Egypt and its allies (History, 2018). Israel’s victory in this war not only increased their national pride by significant amounts but also exacerbated the Arab-Israeli conflict (Britannica, 2018). Arabs loss in this war prompted the signing of the Khartoum Resolutions that promised no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel, slamming the door on any chance of a peaceful resolution between the two parties (Arab heads of state, 1967). The writing of the Khartoum Resolutions supports that the conflict will likely not come to a peaceful conclusion and will continue to be a violent clash. The policy of “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel” had been officially followed since the 1949 armistice negotiation but by incorporating the policy into the Khartoum Resolutions it only accentuates the fact that Arab is strongly against any sort of conclusion (Mid East Web, 2017).

Daniel Gordis’s ‘Independence the State is Born’ and Anita Shapira’s ‘The War of Independence 1947-1949’ both discuss the 1947-49 conflict. Both authors shed light on the historical events that occurred during the Jewish struggle to establish a safe haven after years of exile. However, Gordis’s account pays more attention to the human actors involved in the decisive events leading up to the creation of an independent Jewish state – their individuality, interpersonal conflicts, motivations and inclinations. Shapira’s account is a historic piece on the nature of the conflict between its principal opponents – the Jews and the Arabs. Her work is orientated towards unraveling the underlying causes – historical, demographic or ideological – that make any attempt at conciliation between the Jews and the Arabs well-nigh impossible.

The two authors differ in their treatment of the subject. Shapira’s writing is forthright and factual. She peels through the various layers of the Arab-Israeli conflict by citing well-documented and undisputable historical events, thus steering herself away from being accused of as an outright Israel-sympathizer. This is a historical narrative; a comprehensive coverage of the war of independence, which she does with assiduous neutrality. Gordis on the other hand is unabashedly a pro-Jewish nationalist when he thinks he has right reasons to be so. He lauds the principles and values enshrined in the secular constitution of the newly formed state of Israel assuring freedom, justice and equality to all its citizens – Arabs included. He ascribes the progressive and pragmatic orientation of the modern Jewish state to the ethics imbibed through Jewish doctrines and traditions. Gordis brings out the human element in the conflict by focusing on eminent leaders, their conflicts, dilemmas and redeeming qualities.

Gordis weaves interesting anecdotes into his narrative making it an engaging and insightful read. His narrative is interspersed with literature, poetry, quotes by historians like Michael Oren, Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe. Gordis’s book is an easy read and seeks to tell the story of the war of independence rather than give a chronology of events. He interspersed interesting anecdotes like the intense hatred of British Evelyn Barker, towards Zionism and his act of urinating on the ground to show his disapproval; the ‘ironic arms deal’, of how Israel fought its war of Independence with Nazi guns – arms meant for Nazi Germany used by Jewish freedom fighters many of whom had escaped the holocaust. He also highlights the fundamental differences in ideology between Ben Gurion and Begin, and the conflict it caused. This friction between the two resulted in a civil war, when Ben-Gurion falsely implicated Begin in the Altalena affair. He applauds Ben Gurion for being a brilliant strategist yet does not ignore his flaws; his callousness when he refuses to allow the burial of the dead Irgun’s. Gordis is blatantly and boldly Israeli and his pro-Israel leanings are evident. His narrative illustrates the pride in the ingenuity and perseverance displayed by the IDF in their struggles to build the Burma Road; the use of Davikda and soda bottles, that sound like atom bombs or grenades exploding, compelling frightened Arabs to flee. He applauds the Jewish trait of self-criticism, claiming it to be one of Israel’s greatest strengths. He cites how Natan Alterman in his poem ‘For This’ critiqued the attack on Lydda and was appreciated by Ben Gurion who called it “a pure and loyal voice for the human conscience”. Gordis takes a swipe at the Palestinians, accusing them of rejecting recommendations for peaceful co-existence, like the Peel commission and, for perpetuating violence.

Anita Shapira gives a more in-depth history of the war of independence, with a detailed coverage of the events during the war, also giving detailed accounts of the peace agreements between Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. She analyses the defeat of a large Arab army, attributing it to the lack of cohesion between the armies of the various Arab states, who acted as different entities instead of one, creating confusion and weakening their strength. She attributes most of the decisions made by the Jews during the war based on assumptions and misinformation. Overall, she concerns herself only with the two conflicting parties viz. the Arabs and the Jews. Therefore, she fails to mention the internal turmoil within the nascent state of Israel – the parallel militant groups the Irgun and Lechi; the civil war and the bombings and assassinations carried out by them. She attributes the Arab clashes of 30 November 1947, as the precursor to war and lays the blame on the Palestinians for initiating the war. It was but logical that they had to pay a heavy price for their misdemeanour. But unlike Gordis she is not outrightly pro-Israel. Shapira treats her subject cautiously and provides a balanced assessment of both Arabs and Jews. She acknowledges that IDF was responsible for evicting Palestinians, destroying seized villages and preventing Arabs from returning. Yet she justifies Israel’s barring of Palestinians refugees to return after 1948 by writing, “In the context of the time, Israeli policy on the refugee issue was not considered out of the ordinary”.

While diverging in their treatment of the subject – Gordis’s snippets of interesting information around important personalities suffused with unmistakable Jewish pride and patriotic fervour vis-à-vis Shapira’s unbiased, detail and factual analysis – both authors converge on the Arab refusal to recognize Israel as the main cause of the conflict. Shapira blames anti-Israeli rhetoric channelled through Palestinian education and propaganda for the failure of the Palestinians to live amicably alongside the Jews. Gordis blames the Arab states for deliberately perpetuating the homelessness of the Palestinians by denying them citizenship. By refusing to integrate the Palestinians and according them permanent refugee status, the Arab states are seeking international sympathy and the widespread condemnation of Israel for its supposed atrocities. While both the authors discuss Israel’s war of independence they do so in their distinctive styles. Gordis’s writing brings to life the tension and drama of those moments through the words and deeds of Israel’s war time heroes. His work is full of interesting quotes, anecdotes and little-known facts, making it an interesting and entertaining read. Shapira’s in-depth and detail analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict is for the academic. Notwithstanding their contrasting approaches, both Gordis and Shapira believe that conciliation between Arabs and Jews would be possible only through a paradigmatic shift in the Arab mindset – and Israel can show them the way.

Introduction

The Middle East has proven to be a crucible, occasionally caused by tensions between two ethnic groups, including Jews and Arabs, and two different and incompatible monotheistic faiths, respectively, Judaism and Islam, since the end of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Many experts view Israel’s ongoing hostility with Palestine as a major source of terrorist activity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has dominated the spectacular setting of the Middle East for 70 years. International struggles have been avoided by a complete diplomatic solution, leaving some disappointed with the prospect of peace. Large-scale ferocity ebbs and flows, leaving neighborhoods vulnerable and allowing the conflict to linger as a rallying platform for terrorist groups while requiring increased attention from the United States and globally.

Given this short-term perspective, it remains possible to take steps for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A developed Israeli and Palestinian public society framework strives for a just and lasting concord, and regional strategic changes will open up new possibilities to move towards Israeli-Palestinian and wider provincial conflict settlement.

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is one of the most complex and insistent tensions in today’s world order. The’ war’ between the government residents of Israel and the Palestinian Stateless people is now part of an extremely violent and warped environment. The Israelis-Palestinian relationship is profoundly complex and therefore without a simple explanation or solution. The lack of a single answer has made it difficult for others to grasp the disagreement. Anybody who tries to analyze the problem typically does too many inquiries and not enough responses. This paper aims at defining the main characteristics of the dispute. Throughout the explanation of how Jewish-Arab connections have been changed and influenced by the circumstances throughout Israel and Palestine, the paper takes into account the historical and contemporary dimensions of conflict.

Literature Review

Dowty. States that the dispute between Arab and Israel is often characterized as one of the most violent, or even the most aggressive, battlefields in the world today. Scholars talk of “age-old ethnic hatreds” between Arabs and Jews, “thousands of years” and “the clash between faiths” which is at the very root of these hatreds between Islam and Judaism, as well as of the incessant cycle of violence, which feeds hatred and intensifies the fight, rendering it an eternal and insoluble problem. These characteristics pose a major problem (Dowty, 2012).

The author argues that is not an “age-old” war. The source lies in the 1880s when Jewish refugees from eastern Europe started developing a Jewish community in the ancient nation of Israel, which became part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Only the 1947-9 war gave birth to a wider Arab-Israeli element.

Dowty. A argues that is not ethnic hatred-related conflict. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the identification of Arabs or Palestinians really began to develop, and the assertion of that name responded rather than as a consequence of confrontation with Jewish settlers. It was relatively new, but not universally accepted, for Jews to claim that the Jews constitute both an ethnic group and a religion-an affirmation that was necessary to establish a territorial claim in the ‘national land (Dowty, 2012).’

The author argues that is not a ‘clash of the faiths’ dispute. This certainly brought on religious problems as the war grew and the spiritual element became ever more relevant (Dowty, 2012). Judaism was, however, a non-proselytizing faith recognizing Islam as a true major religion (Lewis, 1984). Finally, the author states that is more argumentative, nor are there any grounds for declaring it insoluble, a conflict of constant violence. The struggles between Jews / Israelis and Palestinian Arabs have undergone various major changes in intensity and extent over the century and quarter of their existence. There have been times of relative stability and harmony, along with cycles of drastic and violent abuse. Not only are general wars like the two world wars, but other ethnic conflicts which have resulted in the killing of whole propulsions have damaged him (Dowty, 2012).

Seeing the conflict in this long-range perspective also provides the best evidence that it is not, in fact, insoluble. We see that the violence is not constant; there must be, therefore, some conditions under which the two sides exercise restraint. This is not simply an irrational eruption of hatred and hostility. In fact, contrary to the popular image, the gap between mainstream opinion on the two sides has actually narrowed over time. To show this, we must look at the board historical picture, which will focus on the

History of Israel and Palestine conflict

The war between Israel and the Palestinians, which started in the early 20th century, is the current dispute between Israelis and the Palestinian people. There is a large rivalry between Zionist Jishuv and the Arabs, who are now residing in Palestine below the Ottoman rule, and then British rule, in relation to the early stages of the same dispute. This comes as part of the larger rivalry between Arab and Israel. The main questions remain mutual recognition, security, protection, water rule, Jerusalem command, Israeli settlements, independence of the Palestinian community, and resolution of the refugee problem.

Several efforts have been made to negotiate the two-state solution, including the creation within a sovereign Jewish state or the State of Israel (after the founding of Israel in 1948), of an autonomous Palestinian state. According to a number of polls, the two-state solution was favored over any other option in 2007 by the plurality of both Israeli and Palestinian people. Furthermore, the Palestinians ‘ appeal for an independent state is seen by a large majority of the Jewish community and Israel claims it can support the formation of such a government. Many Palestinians and Israelis regard West Bank and Gaza as an acceptable position in a two-state solution for the future Palestinian state. Nevertheless, the shape of any final agreement and the credibility level of the other side in upholding basic commitments exist in significant areas of discord.

The dispute creates a wide range of views and beliefs between Israeli and Palestinian communities. This underlines the deep divisions between Israelis and Palestinians, but also in any culture. For almost the whole of its existence, a characteristic of the war has been the degree of aggression. Traditional forces, paramilitary groups, terror cells, and people are responsible for combat. The deaths were not restricted to the military, with many civilian incidents on both sides. The dispute is affecting famous international players.

As an international problem, the roots of Palestine lay in developments at the end of World War I. Such developments led to the decision of the League of Nations to render Palestine a mandatory force under the League’s mandate scheme during Britain’s administration. It was in principle meant that the mandate was in the nature of a transitional period until Palestine became a fully independent nation, a status that had been temporarily recognized by the League Pact, but the historical trends of the mandate did not, indeed, result in Palestine emerging as an independent nation.

Cause of conflict

The center of the controversy between Israel and Palestine is the two peoples ‘ claims to the same ground. Through time, the conflict is, and is, between an Eretz Yisrael-the traditional state of Israel-a Jewish political movement, and an Arab / Palestinian political movement that describes the same lands as Filastin (Palestine) as an essential component of the Arab world, with other elements attached (Dowty, 2012). Israel’s proponents would like to describe the fundamental issue in quite a different language, claiming that it is Palestinians’ and other Arabs ‘ denial of accepting the presence of the Jewish State in the ancient Jewish homeland which is the root cause of the conflict. The core issue in Arab words is the denial of the Palestinian people’s natural right to self-determination in their ancestral home states. However, both of them opposed the defense groups with their own answers and agreed that this is a matter of contradictory claims on the same territory (Dowty, 2012).

The rivalry between Israel and the Palestinians is an ongoing fight that began at the beginning of the 20th century. There is a very large dispute between the Zionist Yishouv and the Arab population living in Palestine, under Ottoman rule, and the later British, also in relation to the previous phases of the same conflict. It is part of the broader conflict between Arab Israel and Israel. The remaining key issues are a mutual acknowledgment of the Palestinian people, borders, safety, water rights, the supervision of Jerusalem, Israel’s settlements, and freedom of movement.

Conflict-related violence has contributed to both domestic and global policies and other concerns regarding safety and human rights. However, conflicts also curbed tourism development in the area, which is full of historical and religious sites of significance for a large number of people worldwide.

The quest for a fair solution must be addressing the root cause of the violence as the sporadic fighting persists in the Middle East. The conventional wisdom is that even if the two parties are weak, the Israelis are misguided ‘terrorists.’ Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that the Palestinians really have a problem: their country was occupied during the creation of the state of Israel for over a thousand years, without their permission and mostly by violence. Each wrongdoing afterward inevitably follows on both sides from this initial oppression.

Both parties have used a prior incident as a pretext for a current act of violence, Irgun and Lehi soldiers killing innocent residents, including children and women, or suicide attacks carried out by Israeli civilians and Palestinian-based terrorist groups. This feels like it’s no longer right or wrong, despite decades of violence. And for the innocent, suffering did not cease to occur.

2030 Security Concept of Israel

Prime Minister Netanyahu plans to raise the defense budget by 6% of the country’s GDP for the expected risks over the next decade (MoFA, 2018). The budgetary supplement is dedicated to a number of issues, including enhancement of assaults, global digital power levels, strengthening in anti-missile defense, ongoing domestic safeguard steps, and the completion of the protection fences. Prime Minister believes that Israel will have security requirements that are far greater than any other state of similar size because of its limited area, population density, and multiple threats. The Israeli economy today is sufficiently powerful to support this addition. In all events, the increase is implemented while the budgetary framework remains responsible. In the previous two-decade, they have developed a free economy to meet national needs, particularly health. We are at a turning point in the light of the combined challenges. We are called upon today to spend more on safety to protect and preserve our accomplishments. In the hands of other nations, Israel’s role as a commodity in the mix of their security and economic capabilities would improve its political capacity (MoFA, 2018).

Current situation of the Peace Process

The Israeli government, currently headed by a right-wing alliance, is not trusted by Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. Expansion of settlements is one of the fundamental reasons: with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the building of settlements hit its high seven-year rate. During Netanyahu’s time in government, Abbas saw the rapid extension as a strong sign that Israel is trying to make a Palestinian state unlikely. Even though the Palestinians requested a complete moratorium, Netanyahu just sat down to talk during the 9th month while Jerusalem was being broken down everywhere except for ten months from November 2009 onwards (Beauchamp, 2018).

Over decades, Netanyahu opposed a two-state solution to the conflict, and while expressing support for one technically, most argue that his commitment is not sincere. He’s the first member to support a two-state solution while in office amid intense US scrutiny in 2009 for Likud, Israel’s main right-wing party.

But Netanyahu declared that there was no Palestinian state under him when campaigning during the 2015 Israeli parliamentary elections that his party won very resoundingly. It is a suggestion that he wanted to go, but one that demonstrates his long-established belief that Palestinians cannot be expected to be friendly neighbors.

There are real reasons behind Israel’s Palestinian distrust. The Hamas-Fatah rift is one of the main issues. Israel was afraid that, because Hamas had taken control of Gaza, any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority, which it had little real control, would not be lasting in Gaza. This is particularly worrying for the government of Israel despite Hamas ‘ open contribution to the destruction of Israel (Beauchamp, 2018). It is also not clear that Abbas could sell Palestinians for the concessions that he would inevitably have to make to enter into a deal with Israel.

The main reason for the breaking of US Secretaries of State John Kerry’s peace push, in April 2014, is the two sides’ fundamental skepticism of their desire and their capacity to build peace. From that point on, the Palestinians have pushed toward a pressure center to condemn Israel domestically and to force the Israeli government to peace.

Conclusion

In conclusion with more and more proposals for the two-state solution, the concept of independent Israel / Palestine was an option. Several Israelis, especially Benvenuti, claimed that, as early as 1967, a second Israel state had been established and put into effect through the creation of Israeli settlements with the occupation of the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip, the question had to be turned into a truly democratic state through expanding the nationality and the vote to the Palestinians (Benvenisti, 1987). Even those who proceed to ardently push for two-state solutions to save Israel from nationalism have sometimes been forced to recognize that it is probably too late (Baskin, 2008). At least a couple of Palestinians begin contemplating a constitutional state’s option. This implies embracing Israel as a reality, but only as a starting point for the democratization of historical Palestine: that is to say, by achieving equality for itself and eliminating the historically Jewish state (Tareq Y. Ismael, and Glenn E. Perry, 2013). The political class of a largely autonomous state even if Israel continued to dominate in a way analogous to the Bantustans formed by the Apartheid government in South Africa as a response to this country’s racial problem had a strong interest in Palestinian politicians. Finally, I have argued that the Arab States need to fall from the front line and if Palestinians came to communicate for themselves, the conflict was abridged to the core geographic level. We must perhaps concentrate on causing the confrontation to its core and remove the accumulated wrath and alienation, to resolve the fundamental problems.

Bibliography

1. Ataöv, T. ‘. (2004). On Arab-Jewish State; The Ottoman Experience And After. The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 35, 107-115.
2. Baskin, G. (2008, December 15). Encountering Peace: The Emerging Bi-national Reality. Retrieved from Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Encountering-Peace-The-emerging-bi-national-reality
3. Beauchamp, Z. (2018, May 14). How do the current Israeli and Palestinian governments approach the conflict? Retrieved from Vox: https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080092/israeli-palestinian-conflict-current-governments
4. Benvenisti, M. (1987). The Second Republic. Journal of Palestine Studies 16, no. 3, 197-201.
5. Dowty, A. (2012). ISRAEL / PALESTINE, Third Edition, Fully reserved and updated. Cambridge, United State of America: Polity Press.
6. Dowty, A. (2012). ISRAEL / PALESTINE, Third Edition, Fully reserved and updated. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7. Lewis, B. (1984). The Jews of Islam. Prinston University Press.
8. MoFA, I. (2018, August 15). PM Netanyahu presents the ‘2030 Security Concept’ to the Cabinet. Retrieved from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affair: https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2018/Pages/-PM-Netanyahu-presents-2030-Security-Concept-to-the-Cabinet-15-August-20180816-2202.aspx
9. Tareq Y. Ismael, and Glenn E. Perry. (2013). The international relations of the contemporary Middle East: subordination and beyond. London and New York: Routledge.

Section I: identification and evaluation of sources

The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the question: “To what extent did Britain’s involvement in Palestine, from 1916 to 1948, maintain diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews?” In this section, the values and limitations of two sources will be analysed to determine whether Britain’s involvement in Palestine was effective in maintaining diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews. On one hand, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is a primary source that provides evidence for the argument that Britain’s intention was to permanently resolve the conflict. On the other hand, Israeli historian Avi Shlaim’s book “Israel and Palestine: Reappraisal, Revisions, Refutations,” is a secondary source which provides evidence for the argument that Britain’s intervention revolved around the prospect of gaining political benefits over maintaining peace.

The Balfour Declaration has many values to the focus of this investigation. With reference to its origin, the source is valuable because of its relevance to the context of this investigation and its credibility due to being a statement by the British government. With reference to its purpose and content, the source is valuable as it contains information on Britain’s stance of favouring the Jews over the Arabs. This aspect of the source’s purpose and content is relevant to this investigation as it justifies the way Britain would act in the forthcoming years to prevent the escalation of the conflict.

However, the Balfour Declaration also has its limitations to this investigation. Firstly, with reference to its origin (British government), the source is a limitation as it prevents the audience from learning about the hidden political purposes associated with Britain’s support for the Jews. Secondly, with reference to its purpose, the source is a limitation as it doesn’t specify Britain’s reasons for supporting the Jews over the Arabs. Lastly, with reference to its content, the source is a limitation as it lacks details pertaining to Britain’s methods of maintaining diplomatic Arab-Jewish relations, thus creating ambiguity.

Moreover, the excerpt from historian Avi Shlaim’s book “Israel and Palestine: Reappraisal, Revisions, Refutations,” has many values to this investigation. Firstly, with reference to its origin, the source is valuable because its author, being an Oxford University emeritus, has lots of credibilities. Secondly, with reference to its purpose, the source is valuable as it provides two perspectives on Britain’s involvement in the Palestine. While one perspective conveys that Britain got involved to maintain peace, the other conveys that Britain got involved because of its “alliance with a hugely influential political organisation.” Lastly, with reference to its content, the source is valuable as it contains details on the way in which Britain wanted to maintain peace in Palestine.

However, the excerpt also has its limitations. With reference to its origin, the author is of Israeli nationality, which implies that there may be biases. With reference to its content, the source is a limitation because while there are implicit references to “memoirs” on Lloyd George’s “support for the Zionist government,” there are no explicit details of these memoirs that explain why he supported Zionism. Hence, even the source’s content leaves ample room for subjectivity and uncertainty.

Section II: Investigation

Diplomatic relations refer to the mutual understanding of a state’s sovereignty and the acceptance of peaceful collaboration. These relations can determine the fate of a nation, and such was the case in Palestine. The deep-rooted conflict between the Arabs and Jews stemmed from the 1880s when Jewish immigration into Arab Palestine dramatically increased. Since then, several anti-semitic (pro-Arabic) and Zionist (pro-Jewish) movements have taken place, which have culminated into conflict and deteriorated diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews. However, during the First World War, Britain took the unilateral decision of resolving the conflict by attempting to establish a safe haven for Palestinian Jews. Yet, the extent to which Britain’s intervention in Palestine was successful at maintaining Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations can only be determined by chronologically evaluating its successes and failures during its prime years of intervention: 1916-1948.

The first action that Britain took to establish diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews was through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of 1916 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Signed between Henry McMahon of the British High Commission and Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, the Correspondence stated that Britain would recognise the independence of Arab states if they led a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. Through this Correspondence, Britain tried to establish diplomatic relations with the Arabs. Moreover, Britain planned on using its newly established relations with the Arabs to convince them into negotiating peace terms with the Palestinian Jews. However, the plan of using this Correspondence to establish peace between the Arabs and Jews backfired when Britain issued the Balfour Declaration a year later. Sent to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the Zionist movement, the Balfour Declaration was a letter according to which Britain vowed to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the establishment “of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. While this action appealed to the wants of the Jewish population in Palestine, it deteriorated Britain’s relations with the Arabs, who felt that the Declaration was a sign of British favouritism towards the Jews.

Hence, Britain’s plan of establishing diplomatic relations with the Arabs and Jews so that it could act as a mediator for the two parties failed since the Arabs didn’t view the Balfour Declaration as it was supposed to be interpreted. While the Balfour Declaration states that Britain promised a “national home” for the Jews, it did not promise a Jewish state. As said by historian Norman Rose, the ambiguity in the phrasing of the Balfour Declaration was intended because it was the culmination of “a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish state and those who did not.” Even though the phrase “national home” has no legal value in international law related to the establishment of new states, the Arabs and Jews interpreted it incorrectly. Hence, Britain’s issuing of the Balfour Declaration and creation of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence did not work as planned. While these documents were supposed to bring Britain to a stage where it could mediate the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations in Palestine, they escalated the conflict by creating confusion.

Moreover, when the details of the Skyes-Picot Agreement of 1916 were exposed by Russia, the conflict only grew. Under this agreement, Britain and France would carve up Arab states for themselves and internationalise portions of Palestine. The leaking of this agreement further deteriorated the Anglo-Arab relations and resulted in the Arabs no longer complying with Britain’s demand of establishing diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Additionally, the Arabs also felt that Britain’s attempt to carve up only Arab land was another sign of British favouritism towards the Jews, as seen in the case of the Balfour Declaration. Hence, Britain’s creation of the Skyes-Picot Agreement made it fail at maintaining diplomatic relations in Palestine.

Historians like Charles Smith argue in favour of this view by stating that Arab leaders such as Hussein bin Ali “would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine” after learning about what “was contemplated by Great Britain” in the Skyes-Picot Agreement. However, historians like Kedourie and Isaiah Friedman argue that Hussein bin Ali, in reality, found that the Skyes-Picot Agreement lacked legitimacy and, hence, didn’t escalate the conflict. The subjective interpretation of the implications of the Skyes-Picot Agreement provides arguments and counterarguments on whether Britain’s intervention in Palestine maintained or deteriorated diplomatic relations between the Arabs and Jews.

Although the Balfour Declaration, McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and Skyes-Picot Agreement deteriorated the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations, Britain’s enforcement of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919 says otherwise. Accepted by Emir Faisal (King of Syria) and Chaim Weizmann (a Zionist leader), the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement ensured that “Palestine…be left on one side for the mutual consideration of all parties concerned.” Through this, Britain managed to restore the deteriorated Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations by 1919.

Furthermore, Britain took the initiative of establishing a “British Mandate” in Palestine. As per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandate’s purpose was to ensure “the well-being and development of” the Palestinian Jews. While Britain could have used its position as a colonial power to use its military to restrict the conflict, it instead accepted three Aliyahs (waves of Jewish immigrants) in Palestine upto 1939. Britain’s acceptance of these Aliyahs escalated the conflict as the Arabs had to bare the influx of approximately 370,000 Jews in their homeland. This attributed to an increase in antisemitism amongst the Arabs, which is reflected in the consequent outbreak of the Arab revolts of 1936-1939. Aimed at the British Mandate and the Jews, the Arab revolts led to the formation of right-wing Zionist paramilitaries such as the Irgun militia, which fought against the Arab League and even the mandate. Hence, Britain’s intervention through the creation of the mandate further deteriorated the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations.

However, the British Mandate’s structuring of education systems, investment in public projects, provision of civil rights, the establishment of national councils, and facilitation of economic support through the Histadrut (trade union), helped maintain the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations. For example, the Jaffa Electric Company, which was set up by a Zionist in 1923, provided electricity to both Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine. As a result, a mutual dependence burgeoned between the two ethnic groups. Moreover, the reformation of education systems in Palestine between 1923-1932, significantly increased the literacy rates for both communities. Lastly, the funding provided by Britain till 1932, allowed Palestinian Arabs and Jews to create their own businesses, which greatly developed the standards of living for both communities. Hence Britain’s intervention in Palestine from 1923-1932 maintained Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations.

Contrastingly enough, Britain’s intervention through the education systems and public works between 1923-1932 could also be viewed as another reason for the deterioration of Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations. While both communities prospered because of Britain, the Jews benefited much more than the Arabs did. While literacy rates for Jews reached 86% in 1932, it was only 22% for the Arabs. Moreover, the establishment of the Jaffa Electric Company by a Zionist leader, made the Arabs feel as though the British viewed the Jews as superior. This led to an increase in antisemitism amongst the Arabs, thus making the few instances of Britain’s success at maintaining diplomatic Arab-Jewish relations the reason for its eventual deterioration. The subjective interpretation of Britain’s involvement in Palestine through the mandate between 1923-1932, makes it appear as if it was successful yet unsuccessful at maintaining diplomatic relations between the Arabs and the Jews.

However, Britain’s issuing of the Peel Commission’s 1937 two-state report and enforcement of the White Paper of 1939, were attributed to the maintenance of diplomacy between the Arabs and Jews. The two-state report appealed to both Zionists and Arabs after further deliberation in 1937, hence calming the heightened tensions during the Arab revolts of 1936-1939. Moreover, Britain’s White Paper of 1939, “offered a prospect that Palestine might…become a Jewish State,” but it would share a government that would “ensure the essential interests of each community.” This, along with the clause that restricted further Jewish immigration and their right to buying Palestinian land, was acceptable and appealing to the Zionists and the Arab League.

Yet, despite its short-lived successes between 1937-1939, it was Britain’s final action of supporting the creation of Israel in 1948 that led to the complete downfall of the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations. Britain’s support towards establishing the “home for the Jewish” people that was promised in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, led the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 right after Israel was formed. This marked the end of any Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations.

In conclusion, Britain’s involvement in Palestine through the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (1919), the British Mandate (1923-1932) the Peel Commission’s two-state report (1937) and the White Paper (1939), maintained diplomatic Arab-Jewish relations. However, the ultimate result of the Arabs and Jews having no diplomacy towards each other, arose from Britain’s intervention in Palestine through the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (1916), Balfour Declaration (1917), Skyes-Picot Agreement (1916), the British Mandate (1923-1932) and the establishment of Israel (1948). Yet, it is imperative to consider the dichotomous role that some of these actions —such as the Skyes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the British Mandate— played towards the maintenance and deterioration of the Arab-Jewish diplomatic relations. Through the use of historiography and the evaluation of multiple perspectives for the chronologically analysed examples, a balanced and unbiased conclusion can be drawn for this investigation. Whether observed in hindsight or not, Britain’s involvement in Palestine from 1916 to 1948 was far more responsible for the deterioration of diplomatic relations between the Arabs and the Jews, rather than its maintenance.

Section III: Reflection

Over the course of this investigation, I dealt with many of the problems faced by historians, particularly determining “the extent” to which a factor of an event played a specific role. In the context of my investigation, this was determining the extent to which Britain’s intervention —a factor of the Arab-Israeli wars— played the role of maintaining diplomatic relations between the two. This made me undergo the process of inputting mixed perspectives, analysing the values and limitations of sources and maintaining a balance between my arguments. To me, this became the link between the difficulties faced by me and the difficulties experienced by historians.

Before formulating this research question, I only had a vague idea for my investigation. Hence, I was unaware of the fact that most historians viewed Britain’s involvement in Palestine as the root cause for the decades-long conflict between the Arabs and Jews. This brought me to my first problem: dealing with an extremely one-sided question. To overcome this, I had to do extensive research to find counter-arguments to Britain’s deteriorating Arab-Jewish relations and learn to interpret evidences in two perspectives to provide a balance of arguments. Moreover, the fact that very few historians supported the idea of Britain maintaining diplomatic Arab-Jewish relations, taught me the difficulty of being a historian who supports an atypical view. Despite being subjected to criticism for supporting the weaker argument, the fact that historians Kedourie and Isaiah Friedman defended their stance, proves that even “in a case of dissension, never dare to judge till you’ve heard the other side.” —Euripides.

Another challenge was looking for sources. Considering the context of 1916 in a European-Middle Eastern conflict, it was difficult to find primary sources that I could integrate in my investigation. Hence, to support and oppose arguments, I resorted to evaluating and interpreting the many agreements that were signed during this time period. This process made me realise the difficulties faced by historians who create secondary sources of knowledge and information on less popular topics. Moreover, the identification and evaluation of sources taught me how to weigh the significance of one source against another. This was invaluable as weighing the importance of sources helped me determine the strength of each argument I built.

The entire process made me aware of the fact that history, unlike mathematics or the natural sciences, is a subject that revolves around subjectivity, objectivity, controversiality and juxtapositions rather than just proofs and theories.

Bibliography:

1. Bell, P.M.H. The World Since 1945 – An International History, London: Bloomsbury.
2. Cohen, M.J. The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, London: University of California Press.
3. “Deir Yassin Massacre.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Sept. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre.
4. Fraser, T.G. The Middle East 1914-1979, Documents of Modern History, London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
5. Freedman, R.O. World Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
6. Hurewitz, J.C. “Arab-Israel Tensions”, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science.
7. “Husayn-McMahon Correspondence.” New Articles RSS, https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/husayn-mcmahon_correspondence.
8. “LibGuides: Palestinian Studies: Arab-Israeli Relations.” Arab-Israeli Relations – Palestinian Studies – LibGuides at Brown University, https://libguides.brown.edu/c.php?g=293926&p=1957470.
9. Milton-Edwards, B. and Hinchcliffe, P. (2001) Conflicts in the Middle-East since 1945, London: Routledge.
10. O’Ballance, E. “The Arab-Israeli War, 1948”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
11. Ovendale, R. The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars, Harlow: Pearson Education.
12. “Palestine Question – UK Accepts UNSCOP Recommendations, Will Not Implement Policy Unless Accepted by Arabs and Jews – Press Release (26 September 1947).” United Nations, United Nations, https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ECB5EAE2E1D29ED08525686D00529256.
13. “Pre-State Israel.” Palestine During World War I, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-during-world-war-i.
14. Schulze, K. E. The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Harlow: Pearson Education.
15. The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.
16. “The Historiography of the 1948 War in Palestine: The Missing Dimension.” Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13531040500195661.
17. Young, J. W. and Kent, J. International relations since 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press.