October 11, 2023

Scott J. Lawson

Hamas’ recent attack on Israel caused widespread anger, confusion, and condemnation around the world. It also resulted in yet another round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “blame game” in academia and in the media. Who is to blame for this violence, and what are the underlying causes of the conflict? The answer for most people seems to depend on how far back one goes on the timeline and how deeply they look into the events that shaped the modern reality. This situation is like the dynamic between the Joker and the titular character in the 1989 film “Batman.” “You made me, remember?” the Joker says to Batman, “You dropped me in that vat of chemicals.” “You killed my parents,” Batman responds. “I made you…you made me first.”

So who is who, and what is what in this conflict? It becomes hard to tell and judgment largely becomes based on individuals perspectives and worldviews over time. But to make some progress on solving the problems that hinder peace in this situation, there are some points of contention that objective observers ought to be able to identity. To do this, we must look at what has been recognized as logical goals and what has created the current impasse and violence. The history that leads to present-day conflicts is often very messy, but we are forced to deal with it. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is no exception.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict as it manifests today mostly stems from the events following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the administration of the region by the UK via the League of Nations in 1922. In accord with the Balfour Declaration, “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” would be sought. Arbitrary division of the land by foreign entities, plans for massive migration, and the creation of new states along religious/cultural lines was destined to be a powder keg of disagreement and long-term instability.

This conflict’s complex beginning has challenged nearly every major delicate balancing act we can imagine between states and within borders. Regardless of the questionable legitimacy of such beginnings, this is sometimes unfortunately the way of the world. The best we can do now (after decades of the cementing in of a new normal) is deal with the disagreement logically. We must identify the challenges, listen to the concerns, and collectively craft mutually beneficial solutions within an objectively-derived, rights-based framework. Neither side is going to want to accept the other’s conditions in totality and they will not budge without seeing an ultimate benefit in compromise. All of us who care about peace and reconciliation have a duty to make that as appealing as possible.

Such a task is obviously easier said than done, but establishing justice and implementing the roadmap to achieving it is not impossible. In fact, it seems evident now, after much serious discussion and several major peace talks over the decades, that a two-state solution is necessary and with that several requirements are always identified. Groups from both “sides” and outside arbiters alike have agreed upon such a general consensus framework multiple times.

So why hasn’t progress towards total implementation of this solution occurred rather than returns to violence and stalemate? The answer, notwithstanding outside interests and interference, is the existence of stubborn hardliners on both sides that see compromise as contrary to their interests and disregard the existing framework towards a two-state solution. This includes Zionist extremists in Israel and anti-Zionist Palestinians, including those in Hamas. Clearly, something has to give.

HISTORY

The history of the conflict and the wording of various plans for peace reveal common themes. The UN began attempts to solve the conflict in the region in 1947. Partition of the land into two states was immediately viewed as a logical solution (with Jerusalem internationalized) and this resulted in Resolution 181 (II) of 1947. Specifically, “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.  The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.” Parts II and III contain specific boundaries for the Arab State and the Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem respectively. Part I contained provisions for implementation including citizenship, religious and minority rights, transit and movement, and economic union.

Upon Israel’s declaration of independence, more fighting over territory resulted in gains for Israel beyond that laid out in Resolution 181 (II) while Palestinians fled the area. In 1967, war broke out again and Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank while also annexing East Jerusalem. More Palestinians fled these areas. Later in 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which set the stage for an agreed upon peace, including stipulations that Israel withdraw from territories occupied during the hostilities, a settlement of the refugee problem (including a right for Palestianians to return) and ceasefire. Specifically, it affirms, “that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

In 1973 hostilities occurred again and the UN then passed Security Council Resolution 338, which called for peace negotiations and compliance with previous resolutions. In 1974, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and to return. In 1975, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The first of their annual reports in 1976 framed the “unique nature of the question of Palestine” as follows; “Members of the Committee emphasized the fact that the people of Palestine, inheritors of an ancient civilization, had commenced their struggle for independence early in the twentieth century and, as far back as the end of the Second World War,
had been ready for independence. Nevertheless, and in spite of the anti-colonialist age that had dawned since the Second World War, the Palestinians, owing to a combination of circumstances, had suffered, instead, dispersal from their homes and deprivation of their inalienab:le rights and property. For 30 years, hundreds of thousands had been forced to live in destitution, many being cast in the role of refugee not once, but twice or even three times in their lifetime. This tragedy had been recognized by the international community as one that should no longer be tolerated.”

The 1980s were filled with stalemate and non-cooperation with existing agreements as well as renewed fighting. Israel continued to implement previously existing internal plans to expand Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory and increase the Jewish population in those areas. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 intending to eliminate the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that was seeking refuge there. The PLO had been granted some official recognition, however at the time the PLO did not recognize the State of Israel, the organization included militant wings, and Israel viewed much of their leadership as terrorists. The UN security Council demanded Israel withdraw “forthwith and unconditionally” from Lebanon up to its internationally recognized boundaries.” In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine (ICQP) convened, adopting the following principles: the need to oppose Israeli settlements and Israeli actions to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

In 1987, the first intifada began. It was a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Over the years, Palestinians killed around 200 Israelis while Israeli forces killed around 1,600 Palestinians in response. In 1988 the Palestine National Council proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine (which has secured incomplete recognition around the world).

The 1990s brought renewed negotiations that largely reiterated the agreements of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). The Government of Israel and the PLO mutually recognized each other. In 1993 the Oslo Accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) were signed. This led to the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, the elections to the Palestinian Council and the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority, the partial release of prisoners and the establishment of a functioning administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule.

The Second Intifada began in the year 2000 upon the failure of the Camp David summit to reach an agreement on a peace process in the conflict. The Second Intifada lasted over four years and resulted in over 1,000 Israeli casualties and at least 3,100 Palestinian casualties. Israel began construction of a West Bank separation wall within the Occupied Palestinian Territory during this time. The International Court of Justice ruled it illegal. In 2002, the UN Security Council affirmed a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. In 2002 the Arab League adopted the Arab Peace Initiative and in 2003 the US, EU, Russia, and the UN released a Road Map to a two-State solution. In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza while retaining control over its borders, seashore and airspace.

Following Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, the US, EU, Russia and the UN conditioned assistance to the Palestinian authority on its commitment to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas won the elections, but a split with Fatah occurred, leaving Fatah essentially in control of West Bank administration and Hamas in Gaza. After an armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade. Hamas rejects Zionism and refuses to recognize Israel, creating a roadblock towards a two-state solution and reversing some of the progress made by the Palestinian Authority up to that point.

Accusations of violations of international law pertaining to the blockade and treatment of Palestinians in Gaza are widespread. Click here for an overview and report of the humanitarian impact per UNICEF. In 2011, UNESCO admitted Palestine as a Member. Amidst sporadic violence, in 2012 Palestine was granted non-member observer State status in the UN. A new round of negotiations begun in 2013 was suspended by Israel in April 2014 following the announcement of a Palestinian national consensus Government. More fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza took place in later that year. In 2016 the Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, which reaffirms that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and are a major obstacle to the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security within internationally recognized borders. As has been the case with these votes, the US abstained.

Hamas, long rejecting Zionism and the State of Israel, at least slightly softened its tone in a 2017 Charter update, which opened the door to unity among Palestinians and the recognition of a Palestinian State (which has not manifested). The new Charter states, “Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu famously ripped up a copy of the Charter, dismissed it as lies, and accused media outlets that covered it of spreading “fake news.”

Also in 2017, the US announced recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In 2022, the UN General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice to render an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the prolonged Israeli occupation that started in 1967, and the implications for Member States. Most legal scholars maintain they violate international law. 2023 has so far contained several rounds of fighting between Israel and Hamas, including the current escalation in Gaza upon Hamas’ assault into Israel.

IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO PEACE

It should be rather obvious by now where the problem lies. It is easy to blame Palestinians that act out with violence and appear uncompromising, which absolutely does set back the peace process and is worthy of condemnation. Immorality can lie within actions, and ends do not morally justify the means. But it is more difficult to see the other causes of the stalemate that in themselves exacerbate the division, cause suffering, anger, and desperation; therefore making violence more likely. In this regard, the hardliners in Israel bear responsibility for perpetuating the conflict. Shall we just accept this cycle of violence where the perceived cause and effect of both sides justify and maintain their current actions relative to one another?

Responding to security threats is always a priority of any state, but it goes both ways between belligerents. We also cannot pick and choose which principles we want to abide by and when, citing Rule of Law when it benefits us, disregarding it when it does not. The onus must be considered to fall mostly on Israel, being the more powerful of the two actors, to extend the olive branches and act in good faith regarding logical compromises and agreements. Do they wish to do this, or are they just stalling until they can eventually usurp the entire area, citing “security” as their justification? Of course this does not seem like a logical or sustainable plan, as the Palestinians will always be there, not to mention the wider Arab world. The sooner their neighborhood reaches sustainability and prosperity, the better for everyone, including Israel.

The United States, likewise, ought to be placing more pressure on Israeli leaders to follow the roadmap towards a two-state solution. Hamas won the elections that resulted in the eventual rift with Fatah (the more reasonable of the two Palestinian political groups in terms of recognition of Israel and compromise in accord with the peace roadmap). Their victory was no doubt aided by the anger and frustration the Palestinian felt from seemingly endless Israeli expansion and oppression, setting back the peace process even more. The United States should not be abstaining from votes condemning continued Israeli settlement building. It is clearly wrong and a primary cause of stalemate at this point. We ought to be demanding Israel commit to permanently sharing access to Jerusalem and facilitating the return of Palestinians to their homes in accord with long-standing agreements. If we are to provide military assistance to Israel, it ought to be in exchange for ending harmful military blockades, apartheid, and ceasing actions that cause humanitarian crisis. As for Hamas, their cause is helped by Israeli stubbornness, and support for their hardline stances may dwindle in favor of more moderate positions if Palestinians see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Geopolitically, the US ought to shift towards being more principled in our relations and policies in order to expand our influence and cultivate respect in the international community, especially in regards to “non-aligned” developing nations. We talk a good game, but we often do not live up to it. This undermines our credibility. These rising countries do not like hypocrites or bullies and we must think about a future where we face continued competition for allies from more concerning rivals like China. And we do not need to throw Israel under the bus to do this. But we should expect them, like ourselves and all our allies, to live up to just and universally applicable principles. The hardliners in Israel are not doing this. If Israel is not doing this, and we are not doing this, how can we expect the Palestinians – who are largely suffering as a result of it – to choose the peaceful path and not fight against the oppression using the methods from which they have to choose – existing authorities, laws, and norms be damned? After all, once upon a time Americans had to do the same.