MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND THE VIABILITY OF THE NEW PEACE INITIATIVE



The Middle East crisis can be easily said to be the most intractable crisis in the history of global conflicts, it has survived so many similar but long resolved or self terminated conflicts, including the Balkan conflicts, Irish Crisis, Korean crisis etc .It has accounted for sizable proportions of the World humanitarian and refugee crisis. Ironically there have been various US inspired  initiatives in search for peace in the troubled region, yet the closest to a form of anything ”peace-like” was the 1977 Camp David Accord which was inspired by US President Ronald Reagan, Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt. The Camp David Accord was significant in the history of Arab-Israeli conflict because it marked the beginning of a “détente” in Israeli-Egypt relationship; Egypt meanwhile was essentially the super power of Arab politics and indeed the major inspiration behind Arab politics and military depth. The peace process therefore was indeed a non Arab affair but a strict Egypt-Israeli settlement which saw Egypt regain the Sinai Peninsula, a gift that essentially kept Egypt quiet and out of what was later to become the Palestine –Israeli crisis (after Jordan led by King Hussein also negotiated peace with Israel)The Camp David Accord did not totally  end hostilities from the Arab World, It only kept Egypt out of the war which predictably instigated more Arab hatred and anger ,even leading to the assassination of the Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat by one of his military guards.

        The Oslo peace process led by US president Bill Clinton, Yasir Arafat of Palestine and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel was also a milestone in the Arab-Israeli peace process, it recognized the limited State of Palestine and her autonomy to control a conceded part of the West Bank and Gaza strip in return for the removal of articles that called for the destruction of Israel in the Palestine national charter. Expectedly the Israelis were angered at this concessions and Yitzhak Rabin was in turn assassinated, the peace process later broke down with accusations and counter accusations from both sides, eventually stalling or postponing key questions in Palestine-Israeli crisis - the status of the West bank and the Gaza stip.

        It has been 17 years since the last major peace initiative, while other peace processes have similarly broken down, including the 1998 Netanyahu/Arafat negotiations, the Arab-Israeli tension has lingered, a disappointment to the US and indeed the world at large. The Middle East crisis have since become a major issue in the US foreign policy and therefore realizing the sensitivity of the issue and the sentimental inspirations from the Scriptures(Zionist inspiration), Most US presidents have chosen to thread softly in the resolution of the crisis and the conduct of US-Israeli foreign relations.

        However to fully resolve this crisis it is only commonsensical to go back to history and find the remote causes of this perennial stalemate, the issues and how the situation got to this unacceptable stage.

        Throughout history the land of historic Israel and Palestine was conquered many times by invaders, the land in question is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea, and it was believed to have been inhabited by the Jews who migrated to the area around 13th B.C  and formed a confederate of some kind as the state of Israel, the Jews were however expelled from the land by the Romans around AD 135,and the Jews continued their historical sojourn and migration to other places in Europe and even Africa. In subsequent centuries many Jews dreamt of a day they would return to their long lost homeland. In the 1890s Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist living in Austria, advocated reestablishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Herzl believed Zionism (the reuniting of Jewish people in Palestine) would match 'a people without a land with a land without a people.'

        Palestine was however already occupied by the Arab Muslims who mainly lived in the country side and a mixture of Muslims and remnant Jews occupied the larger towns, The Ottomans who now ruled the land saw little value in the area therefore neglecting it, this resulted in hunger, diseases and poverty; the British who were however “the Imperialist extraordinaire” saw the strategic importance in the area because it served as a land corridor to Europe, Asia and Africa.

        Meanwhile the Zionist movement gained momentum in the late 19th century resulting in the mass migration of Jews back to the land of Palestine; this movement was strategic as history would later

Prove, the Jews focused on self reliance through Agriculture which meant the Jews who were successful traders or business men bought land form local Arabs who were either absentee landlords or small tracts owners culminating in increased contact between the Arabs and the Jews as well as an expanded Jewish occupation and “ownership” of the land.

        The British with a part of their eye focused on this part of the world eventually took occupation of the land after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. In return for their help, (Arabs and Jews) the British created series of perpetual complexities by promising autonomy to both Zionist (Jews) and Arabs. In a series of correspondence in what was to be known as the Hussein-Mc Mahon correspondence, the British promised king Hussein ,the leader of the Arab people the new state of Arab in the lands of the former Ottoman Empire. Ironically the British in what to be later known as the Balfour declaration promised the Israelis the same piece of land promised the Arabs. The British in her characteristic “sit on the fence posture” later explained in a volte face that she neither promised the Arabs or the Jews the whole of the land in question, rather than a part of it.

        Probably seeing the crisis she may have caused becoming more real than imminent, in 1922 the British separated Palestine into two territories: land east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Transjordan (now Jordan); land to the west, from Lebanon and Syria in the north to Egypt in the south, remained Palestine. It was in this limited territory that Zionists clashed with Palestinian Arab nationalists. Both Jews and Arabs conducted terrorist attacks and intermittent, low-level warfare. Both groups resisted the British, particularly when a British policy was believed to benefit one side over the other. The struggle was reflected in political efforts to control land, institutions, and the economy.

        Initially the world and of course the British supported the Arabs by preventing further mass migration of the Jews from Europe where they were being persecuted, the situation however took another sharp historical dimension when Hitler  vehemently pursued his holocaust mission, a situation which drew unprecedented pity and world support for the Jews, especially regarding the establishment of a Jewish home State right on the Palestinian land(the Jews vehemently opposed suggestions of finding them a new home land in Africa or elsewhere). On November 29, 1947, the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 181, which called for a partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Arabs opposed it. On May 14, 1948, the British mandate was terminated and at midnight the Jewish state of Israel declared its independence. The new state came under immediate attack from the Palestinian population and Arabs of the surrounding countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

      In the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949 Arab forces (including the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq as well as Palestinian guerrillas) had expected an easy victory over the small and isolated Jewish state, but despite heavy casualties Israel won. Israel also increased the land under its control far beyond what it had been given by the partition plan. The region just west of the Jordan River known as the West Bank came under the control of Transjordan (which was renamed Jordan in 1949). Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip, a small region bordering the southern end of Israel’s Mediterranean coast. The demoralized Arab world was unwilling to accept the Israeli victory, and shortly after the war the Arabs began to regroup for more fighting. The war had also created a large population of Palestinian Arab refugees who fled Israel for camps maintained by the UN in neighboring Arab states. With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries generally refused to allow Palestinians to settle outside the camps or to be granted citizenship. As a result, the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs continued to fester.

        it has been over 60 years after the first major armed confrontation, yet there has not been any ease or solution to the conflict that was created remotely by the British, aided by Russians and Americans who supplied military weapons to both sides, sustained by both parties who were too dogmatic to be reasonable(the Arabs initially rejected a two state solution on the eve of the 1948 war, a solution they are now more than willing to accept even  in their dreams),the Israelis on the other hand were too nationalistic and selfish to neglect the realistic nationalistic aspirations survival demands of the Palestinian people (Palestinian want back lands they lost some years back while the Israelis want lands they believe it was theirs some massive 4000 years ago).

        It is however very gratifying to learn that president Obama was courageous enough to come up with a new peace initiative that effectively looked at the history for solutions, a history both parties Arab and Israel would prefer erased in order to create their own selfish version. The pre 1967 peace plan is a good starting point that should be embraced by both parties if there would ever be peace in that troubled region. President Obama has helped a lot in breaking the dreaded ice by initiating the starting point; it would now be in both parties interest to embrace this novel peace plan. Fortunately PM Benjamin Netanyahu is a veteran that knows the history of the crises having served as Prime Minister before, where he pursued a peace process that later broke down in 1998; he has however vehemently but expectedly opposed the peace initiative saying Israel would not accept the boundaries that existed before the war gave it control of West bank and Gaza strip, calling them indefensible. In all fairness to the Israelis, a lot has changed from the pre 1967 era, demographically and politically: Israelis have invested a fortune in building infrastructures on land that the new deal may require them to relinquish, Jerusalem especially is a key example that is going to constitute an imminent deadlock in the new peace process; Hamas ,a sworn enemy of the Israelis and hitherto the Fatah led PA, has joined alliance with the Fatah led government, a situation the Israelis have vehemently reiterated would constitute a road block to peace, the most important change in the Arab Palestinian conflict is the middle east revolution which has toppled the various government leaders including the Egyptian leader who has been a key ally of the Israelis, this important revolution has changed the dynamics of the middle east politics, it has brought a new government that is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and has in fact opened the Rafah borders, a main gate way to the Hamas controlled Gaza strip, a blockade that was imposed by both the former Egyptian government and the Israelis, and has caused untold economic hardship to the Palestine; as expected the Israeli government has criticized this major diplomatic move by the Egyptians and has indeed  basically criticized every major point inherent in the new peace deal.

        Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to the Capitol Hill in Washington reiterated some of these points, he passionately opposed the new peace initiative which required talks based on the pre 1967 war, and he likewise spoke against the viability of peace talks that is led jointly by the Hamas and the Fatah. However he assured of his desire to lead his country to peace, he continued the perennial blame game by saying it was the Palestine that has refused peace by refusing the recognition of the state of Israel(an assertion I find untrue since the Palestine have recognized the state of Israel as far back as 1993/4).



        However I think if Obama could rally the Republicans some of who constitute the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are perennial and traditional pro-Israeli, pro status quo fanatics, the Israeli leader may have to shift ground a little bit. It was clear at the Joint congress meeting how much Israeli leaders rely on the American support who they consider their spiritual kindred, In fact, PM Netanyahu seem to impress so much that his vociferous and rather rhetoric speech was interrupted more than 50 times by the American Congress.

      However on their part, the Palestinian leaders (both the Hamas and the Fatah) must be sincere, honest and politically committed, considering the perennial anti-Israeli campaign of the Hamas, they must be extra ordinarily prepared to offer hard concessions in return for peace, it is even more important for them because the situation has changed from the 1948 era, The Israelis now own the lands, they control the institutions, and of course the major Arab super power have made peace deals with Israel making the Palestinians more vulnerable and weakened than ever. I believe the time to make history in  Arab-Israeli relations and even by extension America-Arab relations is now, there must be inconvenient concessions from both sides, the land swap proposal must be taken seriously, The issue of Jerusalem may have to be handled more flexibly by the Palestinian negotiators, I figure out the best deal the Palestinians can get is to forsake Western Jerusalem or any part of Jerusalem , albeit with unrestricted access and joint sharing of infrastructure and important institutions, in return, I dare say, for every and any strategically relevant piece of land, probably all of Gaza and West Bank, the reopening of all blockades, with full Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty over the constructed infrastructures  and institutions.         

        Obama was dead right when he said the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was unsustainable. The Map of Israel and Palestine have shown consistently that their destinies are interwoven; politically, socially, and economically, therefore they must live together in peace, it may be sour but the peace will eventually be sweet not only for the Arabs and Israelis but also for the Americans and indeed the entire world.