Palestine: Part 1 – The Dreyfus Affair
As one traces the modern history of the conflict in Palestine, feelings shift back and forth. I don’t see how they can not. The conflict is a virtual tennis match of actions motivated by legitimate fears, perceived slights and anticipatory breaches. To definitively say one side is right or wrong is lunacy when looking at the history. Thanks to Wikipedia, amongst other sources, we are able to do just that.
Where is Palestine?
Palestine is located in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is strategically situated between Egypt, Syria and Arabia, and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, the region has a long and tumultuous history as a crossroads for religion, culture, commerce, and politics. The region has been controlled by numerous different peoples. Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) in which the State of Palestine was declared.
Dreyfus Leads to Zionism
The Dreyfus affair began November 1894 in France with the conviction for treason of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly having communicated French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was sent to the penal colony at Devil’s Island in French Guiana, where he spent almost five years.
Two years later, in 1896, evidence came to light identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the real culprit. After high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence, a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after the second day of his trial. The Army accused Dreyfus of additional charges based on false documents.
Word of the military court’s framing of Dreyfus and of an attendant cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J’accuse, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by the notable writer Émile Zola. Activists put pressure on the government to reopen the case.
In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (now called “Dreyfusards”), such as Anatole France, Henri Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau, and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards), such as Édouard Drumont, the director and publisher of the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole. The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence but Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free.
Eventually all the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were demonstrated to be baseless. In 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
The Affair divided France deeply and lastingly into the pro-Army, mostly Catholic “anti-Dreyfusards” who generally lost the initiative to the anticlerical, pro-republican Dreyfusards. The incident profoundly shocked emancipated Jews. The depth of antisemitism in France, the first country to grant Jews equal rights, led many to question their future prospects among Christians. The Affair was a turning point for many Jews whom began to believe that only the creation of a Jewish state would enable them to join the family of nations and escape antisemitism.
Palestine: Part 2 – Zionism
Two years later, in 1896, evidence came to light identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the real culprit. After high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence, a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after the second day of his trial. The Army accused Dreyfus of additional charges based on false documents.
Word of the military court’s framing of Dreyfus and of an attendant cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J’accuse, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by the notable writer Émile Zola. Activists put pressure on the government to reopen the case.
In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (now called “Dreyfusards”), such as Anatole France, Henri Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau, and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards), such as Édouard Drumont, the director and publisher of the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole. The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence but Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free.
Eventually all the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were demonstrated to be baseless. In 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
The Affair divided France deeply and lastingly into the pro-Army, mostly Catholic “anti-Dreyfusards” who generally lost the initiative to the anticlerical, pro-republican Dreyfusards. The incident profoundly shocked emancipated Jews. The depth of antisemitism in France, the first country to grant Jews equal rights, led many to question their future prospects among Christians. The Affair was a turning point for many Jews whom began to believe that only the creation of a Jewish state would enable them to join the family of nations and escape antisemitism.
Palestine: Part 2 – Zionism
Palestine: Part 2 – Zionism
Zionism
Established in 1897 amidst the Dreyfus Affair, the World Zionist Organization’s first Congress defined Zionism as the seeking of establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. This would be attained through the promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Palestine of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers; the organization and uniting of Jews by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country; the strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness; and the taking of preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism. “Under public law” was generally understood to mean seeking legal permission from the Ottoman rulers of Palestine for Jewish migration. In this text the word “home” was substituted for “state” and “public law” for “international law” so as not to alarm the Ottoman Sultan.
Initial Strategy
The World Zionist Organization’s initial strategy was to obtain permission to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. Eventually, they pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund (founded in 1901 to buy and develop land in Ottoman Palestine) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (founded in 1902 to promote the industry, construction, agriculture, and infrastructure of the land hoped to ultimately become Errata Yisrael or The Promised Land).
In 1903, British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain suggested the British Uganda Program. This called for appropriation of land for a Jewish state in “Uganda” (in today’s Uasin Gishu District, Eldoret, Kenya). Zionists established a committee to investigate the possibility, but it was dismissed in the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905. After that, Palestine became the sole focus of Zionist aspirations.
In 1903, British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain suggested the British Uganda Program. This called for appropriation of land for a Jewish state in “Uganda” (in today’s Uasin Gishu District, Eldoret, Kenya). Zionists established a committee to investigate the possibility, but it was dismissed in the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905. After that, Palestine became the sole focus of Zionist aspirations.
The U.S. and Great Britain
The Jewish population of the USA increased about ten times between 1880 and 1920, with the immigration of poorer, more liberal and radical, “downtown”, Eastern European immigrants fleeing persecution. It was not until 1912, when the secular “people’s lawyer” Louis Brandeis became involved in Zionism, just before the First World War, that Zionism gained significant support. By 1917, the American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, which Brandeis chaired had increased American Zionist membership ten times to 200,000 members making American Jews the financial center of global Zionism.
As in the US, England had experienced a rapid growth in their Jewish minority. About 150,000 Jews migrated there from Russia between 1881 and 1914. With this immigration influx, pressure grew from British voters to halt it. When added to the knowledge in British society of Old Testament scripture, Zionism became an attractive solution for both Britain and the Empire.
Before World War I, Palestine’s Arab population mostly saw themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Zionist leaders concerns before World War I were with the future of the Jewish settlement. A Jewish state seemed highly unlikely then and realistic aspirations focused on creating a new centre for Jewish life. The future of the land’s Arab inhabitants concerned them as little as the welfare of the Jews concerned Arab leaders.
Palestine: Part 3 – World War 1
As in the US, England had experienced a rapid growth in their Jewish minority. About 150,000 Jews migrated there from Russia between 1881 and 1914. With this immigration influx, pressure grew from British voters to halt it. When added to the knowledge in British society of Old Testament scripture, Zionism became an attractive solution for both Britain and the Empire.
Before World War I, Palestine’s Arab population mostly saw themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Zionist leaders concerns before World War I were with the future of the Jewish settlement. A Jewish state seemed highly unlikely then and realistic aspirations focused on creating a new centre for Jewish life. The future of the land’s Arab inhabitants concerned them as little as the welfare of the Jews concerned Arab leaders.
Palestine: Part 3 – World War 1
Palestine: Part 3 – World War I
World War I
World Zionist Organization Headquarters was located in Berlin at the outbreak of World War I. With different national sections of the movement supporting different sides in the war, Zionist policy was to maintain strict neutrality and “to demonstrate complete loyalty to Turkey”, the German ally controlling Palestine at the time.
In January 1915, two months after the British declaration of war against the Ottomans, a detailed memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine was presented to the British Cabinet on the benefits of a British protectorate over Palestine to support Jewish immigration.
The most prominent Russian-Zionist migrant in Britain was chemist Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann developed a new process to produce Acetone, a critical ingredient in manufacturing explosives that Britain was unable to manufacture in sufficient quantity. In 1915, the British government fell as a result of its inability to manufacture enough artillery shells for the war effort. In the new Government, David Lloyd George became the minister responsible for armaments, and asked Weizmann to develop his process for mass production.
Lloyd George was an evangelical Christian and pro-Zionist. According to Lloyd George, when he asked Weizmann about payment for his efforts to help Britain, Weizmann told him that he wanted no money, just the rights over Palestine. Weizmann became a close associate of Lloyd George (Prime Minister in 1916) and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Foreign Secretary in 1916), Arthur Balfour.
In 1916, Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca (in Arabia), began an “Arab Revolt” hoping to create an Arab state in the Middle East. In the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence British representatives promised they would allow him to create such a state. They also provided him with large sums of money to fund his revolt.
In June 1917, the British army invaded Palestine with the Jewish Legion participating with valor in the invasion. Arab forces conquered Transjordan (part of the Southern Levant east of the Jordan River, roughly consisting of present-day Jordan) and later took over Damascus.
In January 1915, two months after the British declaration of war against the Ottomans, a detailed memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine was presented to the British Cabinet on the benefits of a British protectorate over Palestine to support Jewish immigration.
The most prominent Russian-Zionist migrant in Britain was chemist Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann developed a new process to produce Acetone, a critical ingredient in manufacturing explosives that Britain was unable to manufacture in sufficient quantity. In 1915, the British government fell as a result of its inability to manufacture enough artillery shells for the war effort. In the new Government, David Lloyd George became the minister responsible for armaments, and asked Weizmann to develop his process for mass production.
Lloyd George was an evangelical Christian and pro-Zionist. According to Lloyd George, when he asked Weizmann about payment for his efforts to help Britain, Weizmann told him that he wanted no money, just the rights over Palestine. Weizmann became a close associate of Lloyd George (Prime Minister in 1916) and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Foreign Secretary in 1916), Arthur Balfour.
In 1916, Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca (in Arabia), began an “Arab Revolt” hoping to create an Arab state in the Middle East. In the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence British representatives promised they would allow him to create such a state. They also provided him with large sums of money to fund his revolt.
In June 1917, the British army invaded Palestine with the Jewish Legion participating with valor in the invasion. Arab forces conquered Transjordan (part of the Southern Levant east of the Jordan River, roughly consisting of present-day Jordan) and later took over Damascus.
Balfour Declaration
In August 1917, as the British cabinet discussed the Balfour Declaration, Edwin Samuel Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet and staunch anti-Zionist, stated opposition on the grounds that it was capitulation to anti-Semitic bigotry, with its suggestion that Palestine was the natural destination of the Jews; and that it would be a “grave cause of alarm to the Muslim world”.
So additional references to the future rights of non-Jews in Palestine and the status of Jews worldwide, were thus inserted by the British cabinet, reflecting the opinion of the only Jew within it. As the draft was finalized, the term “state” was replaced with “home”, and comments were sought from Zionists abroad. Louis Brandeis, a member of the US Supreme Court, influenced the style of the text and changed the words “Jewish race” to “Jewish people”.
On November 2, the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made the Balfour Declaration of 1917, expressing the government’s view in favor of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, and specifically noting that its establishment must not “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
The Balfour Declaration was in direct contradiction to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 which stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States. This meant contradictory assurances were given to Palestinians about an Arab state in private at the same time as they were given to Israelis about a Jewish State.
Palestine: Part 4 – Post WWI
So additional references to the future rights of non-Jews in Palestine and the status of Jews worldwide, were thus inserted by the British cabinet, reflecting the opinion of the only Jew within it. As the draft was finalized, the term “state” was replaced with “home”, and comments were sought from Zionists abroad. Louis Brandeis, a member of the US Supreme Court, influenced the style of the text and changed the words “Jewish race” to “Jewish people”.
On November 2, the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made the Balfour Declaration of 1917, expressing the government’s view in favor of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, and specifically noting that its establishment must not “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
The Balfour Declaration was in direct contradiction to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 which stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States. This meant contradictory assurances were given to Palestinians about an Arab state in private at the same time as they were given to Israelis about a Jewish State.
Palestine: Part 4 – Post WWI
Palestine: Part 4 – Post WWI
Post WWI
After the defeat and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by European colonial powers in 1918, the League of Nations (first intergovernmental organization founded as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War whose principal mission was to maintain world peace) endorsed the full text of the Balfour Declaration and established the British Mandate for Palestine. At this time, Zionist priorities were encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestine, building the institutional foundations of a Jewish state and raising funds for these purposes. The 1920s saw a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration.
Arab nationalists predominantly perceived Zionism as a threat to their own aspirations. This sense was heightened, by the growth of the Zionist labor movement and its “Hebrew labor” program. The latter was an effort to increase Jewish immigrant employment, secure the creation of a Jewish proletariat, and to prevent Zionist settlement from turning into a standard colonial enterprise. Initially, it sought to develop separate settlements and economies and campaigned for the exclusive employment of Jews; it later campaigned against the employment of Arabs. Its adverse effects on the Arab majority were increasingly noted by the mandatory administration.
After the signing of the Faisel-Weizmann agreement in 1919 (a short-lived agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East), Palestinian Arabs who originally looked to Arab-nationalist leaders to create a single Arab state, developed their own brand of nationalism and call for Palestine to become a state governed by the Arab majority, in particular they demanded an elected assembly.
Arab nationalists predominantly perceived Zionism as a threat to their own aspirations. This sense was heightened, by the growth of the Zionist labor movement and its “Hebrew labor” program. The latter was an effort to increase Jewish immigrant employment, secure the creation of a Jewish proletariat, and to prevent Zionist settlement from turning into a standard colonial enterprise. Initially, it sought to develop separate settlements and economies and campaigned for the exclusive employment of Jews; it later campaigned against the employment of Arabs. Its adverse effects on the Arab majority were increasingly noted by the mandatory administration.
After the signing of the Faisel-Weizmann agreement in 1919 (a short-lived agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East), Palestinian Arabs who originally looked to Arab-nationalist leaders to create a single Arab state, developed their own brand of nationalism and call for Palestine to become a state governed by the Arab majority, in particular they demanded an elected assembly.
1920 Jerusalem Riots
Speeches by Arab religious leaders during the Nebi Musa festival (in which large numbers of Muslims traditionally gathered for a religious procession) led to violent assaults on the city’s Jews. Five Jews and four Arabs were killed, and several hundreds were injured.
The British military administration of Palestine was criticized for withdrawing troops from inside Jerusalem and because it was slow to regain control. As a result of the riots, trust between the British, Jews, and Arabs eroded. The Jewish community increased moves towards an autonomous infrastructure and security apparatus parallel to that of the British administration. At the same time, Zionist supporters were by now aware of Arab opposition which led to the movement in 1921 to pass a motion calling on Zionist leadership to “forge a true understanding with the Arab nation”.
The British military administration of Palestine was criticized for withdrawing troops from inside Jerusalem and because it was slow to regain control. As a result of the riots, trust between the British, Jews, and Arabs eroded. The Jewish community increased moves towards an autonomous infrastructure and security apparatus parallel to that of the British administration. At the same time, Zionist supporters were by now aware of Arab opposition which led to the movement in 1921 to pass a motion calling on Zionist leadership to “forge a true understanding with the Arab nation”.
Antisemitism
During the 1920s concerns about antisemitism increased across Europe. By 1928, nations were increasingly legislating immigration, which at times prevented Jews from entering, and some of the new European states, established after the First World War, perceived Jewish immigrants as a threat to their political stability. Many countries feared that immigrating Jews from the east would bring revolutionary political ideas with them; Jews were also perceived as being a negative moral influence on society.
Hitler and the Nazi Party In Germany
The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for increased Zionist support and immigration to Palestine. The long-held assimilationist and non-Zionist view that Jews could live securely as minorities in European societies had been undermined, since Germany was previously regarded as the country in which Jews had been most successfully integrated. With nearly all other countries closed to Jewish immigration, a new wave of migrants headed for Palestine. Those unable to pay the fees required for immediate entry by the British had to join the waiting lists.
Nazi efforts to induce Jews to leave Germany were made, but were undermined by their refusal to allow them to take their property also. In response, the Jewish Agency negotiated the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis, whereby German Jews could buy and then export German manufactured goods to Palestine. In Palestine the goods were later sold and the income returned to the migrants. As a result of this agreement, the influx of capital gave a much-needed economic boost in the midst of the Great Depression.
Nazi efforts to induce Jews to leave Germany were made, but were undermined by their refusal to allow them to take their property also. In response, the Jewish Agency negotiated the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis, whereby German Jews could buy and then export German manufactured goods to Palestine. In Palestine the goods were later sold and the income returned to the migrants. As a result of this agreement, the influx of capital gave a much-needed economic boost in the midst of the Great Depression.
Illegal Migration
Starting in 1934, the Revisionists (faction within the Zionist movement providing the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel) also began organizing illegal immigration, resulting in a rapid increase in population of Jews in Palestine. While conditions also led to increased Arab immigration, the rapid rise in Jewish immigrants would eventually lead to conflict. By 1938, increasing pressure on European Jews also led mainstream Zionists to organize illegal immigration.
Palestine: Part 5 – Religious Conflict
Palestine: Part 5 – Religious Conflict
Palestine: Part 5 – Religious Conflict
Religious Conflict
In 1920, a new Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Sunni Muslim cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places including Al-Aqsa Mosque) was chosen. He believed the Jews in Palestine were seeking to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem on the site of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque (a series of structures functioning as a site of ancient Israelite and later Jewish worship). The creation of Zionist initiatives in hopes of founding a “Promise Land” seemed to justify these fears. This led to a long confrontation over the use of the Kotel (remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple’s courtyard), also known as the Wailing Wall, owned by the Muslim authorities but sacred to Jews.
1929 Palestine Riots
In late August 1929, this long confrontation escalated into violence. The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. During the week of riots from August 23rd to 29th, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured, while 110 Arabs were killed and 232 were injured, most of them by the British police trying to suppress the riots.
The Shaw Commission (result of a British commission of inquiry) found that the fundamental cause of the violence “without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future.”
The Shaw Commission (result of a British commission of inquiry) found that the fundamental cause of the violence “without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future.”
Arab Uprising
From 1936-39, a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine (geopolitical carve out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I) against British colonial rule, as a demand for independence and opposition to mass Jewish immigration occurred from 1936-1939. After strikes and other forms of political protest were subdued by the British civil administration using a combination of political concessions, international diplomacy (involving the rulers of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan and Yemen) and the threat of martial law, a violent and peasant-led resistance movement that increasingly targeted British forces was brutally suppressed by the British Army and the Palestine Police Force using repressive measures that were intended to intimidate the Arab population and undermine popular support for the revolt.
Although the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine was unsuccessful, its consequences affected the outcome of the 1948 Palestine war (which we will cover). It caused the British Mandate to give crucial support to pre-state Zionist militias like the Haganah (Jewish paramilitary organization which later became the core of the Israel Defense Forces); while forcing the Grand Mufti into exile.
Palestine: Part 6 – The White Paper
Although the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine was unsuccessful, its consequences affected the outcome of the 1948 Palestine war (which we will cover). It caused the British Mandate to give crucial support to pre-state Zionist militias like the Haganah (Jewish paramilitary organization which later became the core of the Israel Defense Forces); while forcing the Grand Mufti into exile.
Palestine: Part 6 – The White Paper
Palestine: Part 6 – The White Paper
Palestine: Part 5 – Religious Conflict
British support for Zionism was always controversial and the issue was periodically debated in Parliament. Churchill restricted Jewish migration to Palestine to an annual quota. Certificates allowing migration were distributed by the Jewish Agency. Jews with 1000 Pounds in cash or Jewish professionals with 500 Pounds in cash could emigrate freely. Churchill’s reforms made it hard for Arab Jews, Orthodox Jews and Revisionist Zionists from Poland to migrate to Palestine as the Jewish Agency was dominated by European Zionists, and increasingly by Socialist Zionists. Immigration restrictions did, however mean that Jewish immigrants to Palestine had to prove their loyalty and dedication by spending years preparing for migration. Many immigrants arrived after rigorous preparation including agricultural and ideological training and learning Hebrew.
In 1938–39 the Zionist movement had 1,040,540 members in 61 countries. Total world Jewish population at this time was about 18 million, and the idea of a Jewish state was extremely popular amongst them.
The White Paper of 1939
This policy paper issued by the British government in which, among several key provisions, the idea of partitioning Palestine was abandoned. The paper also provided (as alternative to partition) for creating an independent Palestine to be governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1939; a limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944 (consisting of a regular yearly quota of 10,000 and a flexible supplementary quota of 25,000); after 1944 the further immigration of Jews to Palestine would depend on permission of the Arab majority (section II); and restrictions were placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).
The provisions of the White Paper were opposed both by Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee (the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine) argued that the independence of a future Palestine Government would prove to be illusory, as Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case real authority would still be in the hands of British officials. The limitations on Jewish immigration were also held to be insufficient, as there was no guarantee immigration would not resume after five years.
In place of the policy enunciated in the White Paper, the Arab Higher Committee called for “a complete and final prohibition” of Jewish immigration and a repudiation of the Jewish national home policy altogether. However In 1940, after two weeks of meetings with a British representative, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference (called by the British Government to plan the future governance of Palestine and an end of the Mandate) and another delegate agreed to the terms of the White Paper and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the Prime Minister of Iraq.
The provisions of the White Paper were opposed both by Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee (the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine) argued that the independence of a future Palestine Government would prove to be illusory, as Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case real authority would still be in the hands of British officials. The limitations on Jewish immigration were also held to be insufficient, as there was no guarantee immigration would not resume after five years.
In place of the policy enunciated in the White Paper, the Arab Higher Committee called for “a complete and final prohibition” of Jewish immigration and a repudiation of the Jewish national home policy altogether. However In 1940, after two weeks of meetings with a British representative, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference (called by the British Government to plan the future governance of Palestine and an end of the Mandate) and another delegate agreed to the terms of the White Paper and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the Prime Minister of Iraq.
Jewish Insurgency
Zionist groups in Palestine immediately rejected the White Paper and began a campaign of attacks on government property and Arab civilians which lasted for several months. On May 18th, a Jewish general strike was called. On July 13th, authorities announced the suspension of all Jewish immigration into Palestine until March 1940 due to the increase in illegal immigrants arriving.
In response to the White Paper, the right-wing Zionist militant group Irgun began formulating plans for a rebellion to evict the British and establish an independent Jewish state. Irgun’s founder, who had been exiled from Palestine by the British, proposed a plan for a revolt to take place in October 1939, which he sent to the Irgun High Command in six coded letters.
Under the plan, a group of “illegals”, would arrive in Palestine by boat, and the Irgun would help them escape. Next, the Irgun would raid and occupy Government House, as well as other British centers of power in Palestine, raise the Jewish national flag, and hold them for at least 24 hours even at a heavy cost. Simultaneously, Zionist leaders in Western Europe and the United States would proclaim an independent Jewish state in Palestine, and would function as a government-in-exile.
Irgun seriously considered carrying out the plan, but was concerned over the heavy losses it would doubtlessly incur. The plan also called for 40,000 armed Jewish fighters recruited in Europe to sail to Palestine and join the rebellion. The Polish government supported this plan, and began training Jews and setting aside weaponry for them. However, the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 quickly put an end to these plans.
Within Britain there were deep divisions over Palestine policy. Dozens of British soldiers, Jewish militants and civilians died during the Jewish insurgency. The conflict led to heightened antisemitism in the UK and, in August 1947, after the hanging of two abducted British sergeants, to widespread anti-Jewish rioting across the UK. The conflict would cause tension in Britain’s relationship with the United States.
Palestine: Part 7 – The Holocaust
In response to the White Paper, the right-wing Zionist militant group Irgun began formulating plans for a rebellion to evict the British and establish an independent Jewish state. Irgun’s founder, who had been exiled from Palestine by the British, proposed a plan for a revolt to take place in October 1939, which he sent to the Irgun High Command in six coded letters.
Under the plan, a group of “illegals”, would arrive in Palestine by boat, and the Irgun would help them escape. Next, the Irgun would raid and occupy Government House, as well as other British centers of power in Palestine, raise the Jewish national flag, and hold them for at least 24 hours even at a heavy cost. Simultaneously, Zionist leaders in Western Europe and the United States would proclaim an independent Jewish state in Palestine, and would function as a government-in-exile.
Irgun seriously considered carrying out the plan, but was concerned over the heavy losses it would doubtlessly incur. The plan also called for 40,000 armed Jewish fighters recruited in Europe to sail to Palestine and join the rebellion. The Polish government supported this plan, and began training Jews and setting aside weaponry for them. However, the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 quickly put an end to these plans.
Within Britain there were deep divisions over Palestine policy. Dozens of British soldiers, Jewish militants and civilians died during the Jewish insurgency. The conflict led to heightened antisemitism in the UK and, in August 1947, after the hanging of two abducted British sergeants, to widespread anti-Jewish rioting across the UK. The conflict would cause tension in Britain’s relationship with the United States.
Palestine: Part 7 – The Holocaust
Palestine: Part 7 – The Holocaust
Palestine: Part 6 – The White Paper
The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 effectively revoked the citizenship of the 500,000 Jews of Germany, making them refugees in their own country. In March 1938 Hitler annexed Austria making its 200,000 Jews stateless refugees. In September the British agreed to Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland making a further 100,000 Jews refugees.
The Holocaust
During the Holocaust, Europe’s Jews were cut off from and disowned by the outside world. Jews were systematically impoverished, starved and murdered. Where Jews did try to fight Nazis, Zionists were prominent in the resistance. However those fighting never had a real chance of success, and were always bloodily suppressed by the Nazis. Nazi allies Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Croatia (mainly Romania) were responsible for the deaths of at least 10% of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Axis governments, local police forces and local volunteers across Europe played a critical role in rounding up or executing Jews for the Nazis.
It has been argued that Zionist leaders did not do enough in publicizing and trying to stop the Holocaust. While they could have probably succeeded in saving thousands of Jews if rescuing Jews had been their top priority rather than state creation, they truly had no power to “stop” the Holocaust. Efforts were made to offer the Nazis money for the release of Jews; however, these efforts were systematically and often cynically destroyed by the British.
In Palestine, the Zionist leadership instructed all able-bodied Jews to volunteer for the British Army. In addition there was an effort to parachute fighters into Europe, though little came of this. Fearing a Nazi invasion, the Jewish community prepared for a final stand to be made against the Nazis.
The 1942 Zionist conference could not be held because of World War II. Instead, 600 Jewish leaders (not just Zionists) met at the Biltmore Hotel in New York and adopted a statement known as the Biltmore Program where they agreed that the Zionist movement would seek the creation of a Jewish state after the war and that all Jewish organizations would fight to ensure free Jewish migration into Palestine.
In December 1942, when extermination of the Jews became public knowledge, there were 34,000 immigration certificates remaining to Palestine. In February 1943, the British government announced that the remaining certificates could be used as soon as practicable to rescue Jewish children from southeastern Europe, particularly Bulgaria. This plan was partly successful but many people who received certificates were not able to emigrate (those in Bulgaria survived). In July, it was announced that any Jewish refugee who reached a neutral country in transit would be given clearance for Palestine. During 1943 about half the remaining certificates were distributed, and by the end of the war there were 3,000 certificates left
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of January and April 1943 (act of Jewish resistance that arose within the Warsaw Ghetto in German-occupied Poland during World War II, and which opposed Nazi Germany’s final effort to transport the remaining Ghetto population to Treblinka extermination camp) included the participation of both right- and left-leaning Zionist organizations. Its commander was a Socialist-Zionist and Zionists of all political spectra played a leading role in the struggle. The uprising’s left-leaning survivors eventually made their way to Palestine.
The Nazi-inspired genocide in Europe had grave consequences for the Zionists. A large section of the membership was wiped out. The damage was particularly great in Poland where about a third of the Zionist members had lived (the Russian membership had been lost to communism). Also, those Jews who were not killed lost their possessions which severely reduced the ability of the Zionist movement to raise money in Europe.
The Holocaust led to important changes in Jewish and Zionist politics. Many Jews were desperate to leave Europe and were willing to take grave risks for that purpose. Virtually all Jews agreed on the need for a Jewish state where Jews could live free of the fear of persecution and which would provide a haven in times of persecution. Jews of the USA became the dominant force in global Jewish politics. more Jews were prepared to mobilize on behalf of their brethren; and Britain was now weakened and less able to resist international pressure.
Palestine: Part 8 – Partition and Civil War
It has been argued that Zionist leaders did not do enough in publicizing and trying to stop the Holocaust. While they could have probably succeeded in saving thousands of Jews if rescuing Jews had been their top priority rather than state creation, they truly had no power to “stop” the Holocaust. Efforts were made to offer the Nazis money for the release of Jews; however, these efforts were systematically and often cynically destroyed by the British.
In Palestine, the Zionist leadership instructed all able-bodied Jews to volunteer for the British Army. In addition there was an effort to parachute fighters into Europe, though little came of this. Fearing a Nazi invasion, the Jewish community prepared for a final stand to be made against the Nazis.
The 1942 Zionist conference could not be held because of World War II. Instead, 600 Jewish leaders (not just Zionists) met at the Biltmore Hotel in New York and adopted a statement known as the Biltmore Program where they agreed that the Zionist movement would seek the creation of a Jewish state after the war and that all Jewish organizations would fight to ensure free Jewish migration into Palestine.
In December 1942, when extermination of the Jews became public knowledge, there were 34,000 immigration certificates remaining to Palestine. In February 1943, the British government announced that the remaining certificates could be used as soon as practicable to rescue Jewish children from southeastern Europe, particularly Bulgaria. This plan was partly successful but many people who received certificates were not able to emigrate (those in Bulgaria survived). In July, it was announced that any Jewish refugee who reached a neutral country in transit would be given clearance for Palestine. During 1943 about half the remaining certificates were distributed, and by the end of the war there were 3,000 certificates left
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of January and April 1943 (act of Jewish resistance that arose within the Warsaw Ghetto in German-occupied Poland during World War II, and which opposed Nazi Germany’s final effort to transport the remaining Ghetto population to Treblinka extermination camp) included the participation of both right- and left-leaning Zionist organizations. Its commander was a Socialist-Zionist and Zionists of all political spectra played a leading role in the struggle. The uprising’s left-leaning survivors eventually made their way to Palestine.
The Nazi-inspired genocide in Europe had grave consequences for the Zionists. A large section of the membership was wiped out. The damage was particularly great in Poland where about a third of the Zionist members had lived (the Russian membership had been lost to communism). Also, those Jews who were not killed lost their possessions which severely reduced the ability of the Zionist movement to raise money in Europe.
The Holocaust led to important changes in Jewish and Zionist politics. Many Jews were desperate to leave Europe and were willing to take grave risks for that purpose. Virtually all Jews agreed on the need for a Jewish state where Jews could live free of the fear of persecution and which would provide a haven in times of persecution. Jews of the USA became the dominant force in global Jewish politics. more Jews were prepared to mobilize on behalf of their brethren; and Britain was now weakened and less able to resist international pressure.
Palestine: Part 8 – Partition and Civil War
Palestine: Part 8 – Partition and Civil War
Palestine: Part 7 – The Holocaust
In August 1945, President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and also organized an armed resistance. These and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.
In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, rescinding the white paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. The U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions, while the U.K. conditioned their implementation on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt.
In effect, the British continued to carry out the White Paper policy. The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states, calls for a Jihad, and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.
In August 1945, President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and also organized an armed resistance. These and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.
In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, rescinding the white paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. The U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions, while the U.K. conditioned their implementation on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt.
In effect, the British continued to carry out the White Paper policy. The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states, calls for a Jihad, and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.
U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.
Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than August 1, 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than October 1, 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives of Arab nationalists in Palestine and Zionists. The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason being that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.
Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than August 1, 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than October 1, 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives of Arab nationalists in Palestine and Zionists. The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason being that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.
Civil War
After the General Assembly of the United Nations voted for the Partition Plan for Palestine on November 30, 1947, a civil war began in Mandatory Palestine. This would be the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported by the Arab Liberation Army) while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order, organized their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis.
Palestine: Part 9 – Israel and Arab War
Palestine: Part 9 – Israel and Arab War
Palestine: Part 9 – Israel and Arab War
Israel
On May 14, 1948 the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine declared independence in accordance with the UN resolution, and Israel was established as the Jewish state. The U.S. recognized the State of Israel de facto the following day. This marked a major turning point, as the Zionist movement had accomplished its principal goal. As a result, many Zionist institutions became government institutions in the new Jewish stated, and the three Zionist militias were combined to form the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The Provisional Council of Israel’s first constitutional act was a Proclamation that “All legislation resulting from the British Government’s White Paper of May, 1939, will at midnight tonight become null and void. This includes the immigration provisions as well as the land transfer regulations of February, 1940.
Israel shares land borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively, and finally Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south. In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State; it is the world’s only Jewish-majority state.
The Provisional Council of Israel’s first constitutional act was a Proclamation that “All legislation resulting from the British Government’s White Paper of May, 1939, will at midnight tonight become null and void. This includes the immigration provisions as well as the land transfer regulations of February, 1940.
Israel shares land borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively, and finally Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south. In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State; it is the world’s only Jewish-majority state.
Arab-Israeli War of 1948
The following day, a military coalition of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq along with Palestinian Arab (modern descendants of the people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region) forces entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine launching the Arab-Israeli War against the new State of Israel.
Violent campaigns carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine initially turned into civil war between the Arab and Jewish populations in response to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 to divide Palestine into three areas: an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. Jordan declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on May 2 it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state.
The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The 10 months of fighting, interrupted by several truce periods, took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.
Violent campaigns carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine initially turned into civil war between the Arab and Jewish populations in response to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 to divide Palestine into three areas: an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. Jordan declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on May 2 it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state.
The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The 10 months of fighting, interrupted by several truce periods, took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.
Taking Shape
As a result of the war the State of Israel retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 had recommended for the proposed Jewish state and also took control of almost 60% of the area allocated for the proposed Arab state including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road, West Jerusalem, and some territories in the West Bank (a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories.)
Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip (a Palestinian region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea that borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the east and north.) No Arab Palestinian state was created. In 1949 all the belligerents – except the Iraqis and the Palestinians – signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line.
The conflict triggered important demographic changes in the area and through the Middle East. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees (originally included Arabs whose normal places of residence were in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Mandatory Palestine, but now refers to patrilineal descendants of Arab refugees originating in the Mandate.) In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with one-third of them having fled, or having been expelled, from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East.
Palestine: Part 10 – All Palestine Government
Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip (a Palestinian region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea that borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the east and north.) No Arab Palestinian state was created. In 1949 all the belligerents – except the Iraqis and the Palestinians – signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line.
The conflict triggered important demographic changes in the area and through the Middle East. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees (originally included Arabs whose normal places of residence were in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Mandatory Palestine, but now refers to patrilineal descendants of Arab refugees originating in the Mandate.) In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with one-third of them having fled, or having been expelled, from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East.
Palestine: Part 10 – All Palestine Government
Palestine: Part 10 – All Palestine Gov.
All Palestine Government
The All-Palestine Government was established by the Arab League (a regional organization of Arab countries in and around North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia on March 22, 1945 with six members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria on 22 September 1948), during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was soon recognized by all Arab League members, except Jordan.
Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip. The Jericho Conference (held in December 1948 to decide the future of the portion of Palestine that was held by Jordan at the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) named King Abdullah I of Transjordan, “King of Arab Palestine”. The Conference called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Abdullah announced his intention to annex the West Bank. The other Arab League member states opposed Abdullah’s plan.
Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip. The Jericho Conference (held in December 1948 to decide the future of the portion of Palestine that was held by Jordan at the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War) named King Abdullah I of Transjordan, “King of Arab Palestine”. The Conference called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Abdullah announced his intention to annex the West Bank. The other Arab League member states opposed Abdullah’s plan.
Quid Pro Quo
The U.S. supported Israeli claims to the boundaries set forth in the UN General Assembly resolution; however, also believed that if Israel sought to retain additional territory in Palestine it should give the Arabs other territory as compensation. The Israelis agreed that the boundaries were negotiable, but did not agree to the principle of compensation as a precondition. Israel’s Foreign Minister stressed that it was undesirable to undermine what had already been accomplished by the armistice agreements, and maintained that Israel held no territory wrongfully, since occupation of the areas had been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as had the occupation of the territory in Palestine held by the Arab states.
Development Projects
In late 1949, the UNCCP (United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine consisting of France, Turkey and the United States created December 11, 1948 in order to mediate the Arab–Israeli conflict) Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East recommended four development projects, involving the Wadi Zerqa basin in Jordan, the Wadi Qelt watershed and stream bed in Arab Palestine, the Litani River in Lebanon, and the Ghab valley in Syria. The World Bank considered the mission’s plans positive, and the U.S. subsequently announced that the Foreign Economic Assistance Act of 1950 contained an appropriation of $27 million dollars for the development projects recommended by the Commission and to assist Palestinian refugees.
Recognition
As far as the U.S. recognizing the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, the State Department’s position was it was not the custom of the U.S. to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the U.S. accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area.
Decline
The All-Palestine Government was under official Egyptian protection, on the other hand it had no executive role, but rather mostly political and symbolic. Its importance gradually declined, especially with the government seat relocation from Gaza to Cairo, following the Suez Crisis (a diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw.)
Merger
In 1959, the All-Palestine entity was officially merged into the United Arab Republic, becoming de-facto under Egyptian military occupation. The All-Palestine Government is regarded by some as the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state, whilst most just saw it as an Egyptian puppet, only to be annulled a few years after its creation by no less than President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.
Palestine: Part 11 – The Palestinian Liberation Organization
Palestine: Part 11 – The Palestinian Liberation Organization
Palestine: Part 11 – The Suez Crisis
1949 Armistice Agreements
This was the set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines.
Tripartite Declaration of 1950
Signed between the United States, Britain, and France pledging to take action within and outside the United Nations to prevent violations of the frontiers or armistice lines. It also outlined their commitment to peace and stability in the area, their opposition to the use or threat of force, and reiterated their opposition to the development of an arms race.
1956 Suez Crisis
A diplomatic and military confrontation in late 1956 emerged with Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations playing major roles in forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw. Historians have focused on Britain’s failure, and typically conclude the crisis, “signified the end of Great Britain’s role as one of the world’s major powers.”
The attack followed Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal, after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam, which was in response to Egypt’s new ties with the Soviet Union. The aims of the attack were primarily to regain Western control of the canal and to remove Nasser from power, and the crisis highlighted the danger that Arab nationalism posed to Western access to Middle East oil.
Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, allegations began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers. Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions followed.
The three allies, especially Israel, were mainly successful in attaining their immediate military objectives, but pressure from the United States and the USSR at the United Nations and elsewhere forced them to withdraw. As a result of the outside pressure, Britain and France failed in their political and strategic aims of controlling the canal and removing Nasser from power. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF established by United Nations General Assembly to secure an end to the Suez Crisis) would police the Egyptian–Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities.
The foundation of Israel linked to the Palestinian Refugee problem and its participation in the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956 continued to be a significant grievance for the Arab world. Arab nationalists, led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, continued to be hostile to Israel’s existence. By the 1960s, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors had deteriorated to the extent that a number of border clashes had taken place.
Palestine: Part 12 – The PLO
The attack followed Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal, after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam, which was in response to Egypt’s new ties with the Soviet Union. The aims of the attack were primarily to regain Western control of the canal and to remove Nasser from power, and the crisis highlighted the danger that Arab nationalism posed to Western access to Middle East oil.
Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, allegations began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers. Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions followed.
The three allies, especially Israel, were mainly successful in attaining their immediate military objectives, but pressure from the United States and the USSR at the United Nations and elsewhere forced them to withdraw. As a result of the outside pressure, Britain and France failed in their political and strategic aims of controlling the canal and removing Nasser from power. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF established by United Nations General Assembly to secure an end to the Suez Crisis) would police the Egyptian–Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities.
The foundation of Israel linked to the Palestinian Refugee problem and its participation in the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956 continued to be a significant grievance for the Arab world. Arab nationalists, led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, continued to be hostile to Israel’s existence. By the 1960s, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors had deteriorated to the extent that a number of border clashes had taken place.
Palestine: Part 12 – The PLO
Palestine: Part 12 – The PLO
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
The Arab League Summit of 1964 (the first summit of the Arab League held January 13-16 in Cairo) initiated the creation of an organization representing the Palestinian people. The Palestinian National Council (the legislative body of the PLO) convened in Jerusalem on May 28, 1964 and the PLO was founded on June 2, 1964. Its Statement of Proclamation of the Organization declared “… the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its sacred homeland Palestine and affirming the inevitability of the battle to liberate the usurped part from it, and its determination to bring out its effective revolutionary entity and the mobilization of the capabilities and potentialities and its material, military and spiritual forces”.
Due to the influence of Egyptian President Nasser, the PLO supported ‘Pan-Arabism’, an ideology espousing the unification of the countries of North Africa and West Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea referred to as the Arab World. This is not to be confused with Arab nationalism which asserts that Arabs constitute a single nation. The first executive committee was formed on August 9, 1964.
In spite of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the Arab states did not reconcile Israel’s creation as they had in the proposed partition of Palestine in 1948. Therefore, the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 stated: “The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood… [T]he Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.” (Article 18)
Although Egypt and Jordan supported the creation of a Palestinian state on land that they recognised as being occupied by Israel, they would not grant sovereignty to the Palestinian people in lands under Jordanian and Egyptian military occupation, amounting to 53% of the territory allocated to Arabs under the UN Partition Plan. Hence, Article 24: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”
Palestine: Part 13 – The Six Day War
Due to the influence of Egyptian President Nasser, the PLO supported ‘Pan-Arabism’, an ideology espousing the unification of the countries of North Africa and West Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea referred to as the Arab World. This is not to be confused with Arab nationalism which asserts that Arabs constitute a single nation. The first executive committee was formed on August 9, 1964.
In spite of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the Arab states did not reconcile Israel’s creation as they had in the proposed partition of Palestine in 1948. Therefore, the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 stated: “The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood… [T]he Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.” (Article 18)
Although Egypt and Jordan supported the creation of a Palestinian state on land that they recognised as being occupied by Israel, they would not grant sovereignty to the Palestinian people in lands under Jordanian and Egyptian military occupation, amounting to 53% of the territory allocated to Arabs under the UN Partition Plan. Hence, Article 24: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”
Palestine: Part 13 – The Six Day War
Palestine: Part 13 – The Six Day War
Palestine: Part 12 – The PLO
After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria.
In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity, including a mine attack that left three dead, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan’s aid, and “hiding behind UNEF skirts”.
In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel’s border. On May 14, 1967 General Mohammed Fawzi left for Syria for a one day tour where he verified that the Soviet report was false and there were no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border.
Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria. Nasser then misled the Egyptian people by perpetuating the falsehood claiming in an address on the anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, that the IDF was concentrating forces “on Syria’s doorstep”. Nasser expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai on May 19, and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.
Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war. Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23.
On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan’s invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent.
On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.
Six Day War
The Six Day War was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967 by Israel and the United Arab Republic (a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria from 1958-1961 when Syria seceded from the union; Egypt retained the name until 1971), Syria and Jordan. The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian air-fields in response to the mobilization of Egyptian forces on the Israeli border.
A period of high tension had preceded the war. In response to PLO sabotage acts against Israeli targets, Israel raided into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank and initiated flights over Syria, which ended with aerial clashes over Syrian territory, Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli civilian settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli responses against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border, and culminating in Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran (narrow sea passages, about 7 nautical miles wide, between the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) deploying its troops near Israel’s border, and ordering the evacuation of the U.N. buffer force from the Sinai Peninsula. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
A period of high tension had preceded the war. In response to PLO sabotage acts against Israeli targets, Israel raided into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank and initiated flights over Syria, which ended with aerial clashes over Syrian territory, Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli civilian settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli responses against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border, and culminating in Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran (narrow sea passages, about 7 nautical miles wide, between the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) deploying its troops near Israel’s border, and ordering the evacuation of the U.N. buffer force from the Sinai Peninsula. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Israel
Israel’s territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel’s direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel’s strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east, and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War.
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was able and willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would later launch an attack in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory.
The final report on the war to the Israeli general staff listed several shortcomings in Israel’s actions, including misinterpretation of Nasser’s intentions, overdependence on the United States, and reluctance to act when Egypt closed the Straits. He also credited several factors for Israel’s success: Egypt did not appreciate the advantage of striking first and their adversaries did not accurately gauge Israel’s strength and its willingness to use it.
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was able and willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would later launch an attack in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory.
The final report on the war to the Israeli general staff listed several shortcomings in Israel’s actions, including misinterpretation of Nasser’s intentions, overdependence on the United States, and reluctance to act when Egypt closed the Straits. He also credited several factors for Israel’s success: Egypt did not appreciate the advantage of striking first and their adversaries did not accurately gauge Israel’s strength and its willingness to use it.
1967 Oil Embargo
The 1967 Oil Embargo began on June 6, 1967, one day after the beginning of the Six-Day War, with a joint Arab decision to deter any countries from supporting Israel militarily. Several Middle Eastern countries eventually limited their oil shipments, some embargoed only the United States and the United Kingdom, while others placed a total ban on oil exports. The Oil Embargo did not significantly decrease the amount of oil available in the United States or any affected European countries due mainly to a lack of solidarity and uniformity in specific countries that were embargoed. The embargo was effectively ended on September 1 with the issuance of the Khartoum Resolution.
Khartoum Resolution
The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from August 29 to September 1 and was attended by eight Arab heads of state. The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War (where Egyptian involvement was deemed to be devastating to their abilities in the Six Day War), and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…”
Palestine: Part 14 – The Rise of Arafat
Palestine: Part 14 – The Rise of Arafat
Palestine: Part 14 – The Rise of Arafat
Yasser Arafat
The resounding defeat of Syria, Jordan and Egypt in the Six Day War of 1967 destroyed the credibility of Arab states that had fought to be patrons for the Palestinian people and their nationalist cause. The war radicalized the Palestinians and significantly weakened Egyptian President Nasser’s influence. The way was opened, particularly after the Battle of Karameh for Yasser Arafat to rise to power.
Battle of Karameh
March 21, 1968 in the town of Karameh, Jordan, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and combined forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Jordanian Army engaged in battle. Originally, Israel planned two concurrent raids on PLO camps, one in Karameh and one in the distant village of Safi but the former turned into a full-scale battle.
The attacks were in reprisal for a series of raids by the PLO against Israel, mostly by the Fatah faction, which culminated in an Israeli school bus hitting a mine. Israel assumed that the Jordanian Army would ignore the invasion, but the latter fought alongside the Palestinians and inflicted heavy losses upon the Israeli forces. The Israelis withdrew at the end of a day’s battle, having destroyed most of the Karameh camp and taken hundreds of prisoners.
Both sides declared victory. To the Israelis, the purpose of the mission was achieved by destroying the Fatah camp. However, for the Palestinians it became a victory that established their national claims. At first, the battle was seen as unifying the Hashemite Jordan with its many Palestinian refugees and residents, as King Hussein had proclaimed “I think we may reach a position where we are all fedayeen.” After the battle however, the PLO’s strength began to grow, and Palestinians spoke openly of taking over Jordan as part of Palestine.
The attacks were in reprisal for a series of raids by the PLO against Israel, mostly by the Fatah faction, which culminated in an Israeli school bus hitting a mine. Israel assumed that the Jordanian Army would ignore the invasion, but the latter fought alongside the Palestinians and inflicted heavy losses upon the Israeli forces. The Israelis withdrew at the end of a day’s battle, having destroyed most of the Karameh camp and taken hundreds of prisoners.
Both sides declared victory. To the Israelis, the purpose of the mission was achieved by destroying the Fatah camp. However, for the Palestinians it became a victory that established their national claims. At first, the battle was seen as unifying the Hashemite Jordan with its many Palestinian refugees and residents, as King Hussein had proclaimed “I think we may reach a position where we are all fedayeen.” After the battle however, the PLO’s strength began to grow, and Palestinians spoke openly of taking over Jordan as part of Palestine.
Guerilla Warfare
Arafat advocated guerrilla warfare and successfully sought to make the PLO a fully independent organization under the control of the fedayeen (type of voluntary militant group found in Persian culture extending to countries which (historically speaking) were, or are, Persian influenced) organizations. At the Palestinian National Congress meeting of 1969, Fatah (leading Palestinian political party) gained control of the executive bodies of the PLO. Arafat was appointed PLO chairman at the Palestinian National Congress (legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization) in Cairo on 4 February 1969. From then on, the Executive Committee was composed essentially of representatives of the various member organizations. The PLO at this time did not clearly either accept or reject a two state solution.
Palestine: Part 15 – Black September
Palestine: Part 15 – Black September
Palestine: Part 15 – Black September
War of Attrition
Following the 1967 Six-Day War, no serious diplomatic efforts were made to try to resolve the issues at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In September 1967, Arab states formulated the “Three No’s” policy, barring peace, recognition or negotiations with Israel. Egyptian President Nasser believed that only military initiative would compel Israel or the international community to facilitate a full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, and hostilities soon resumed along the Suez Canal.
Initially, these hostilities took the form of limited artillery duels and small-scale incursions into Sinai, but by 1969 the Egyptian Army judged itself prepared for larger-scale operations. On March 8, 1969, Nasser proclaimed the official launch of the War of Attrition, characterized by large-scale shelling along the Suez Canal, extensive aerial warfare and commando raids. Hostilities continued until August 1970 and ended with a ceasefire, the frontiers remaining the same as when the war began, with no real commitment to serious peace negotiations.
Initially, these hostilities took the form of limited artillery duels and small-scale incursions into Sinai, but by 1969 the Egyptian Army judged itself prepared for larger-scale operations. On March 8, 1969, Nasser proclaimed the official launch of the War of Attrition, characterized by large-scale shelling along the Suez Canal, extensive aerial warfare and commando raids. Hostilities continued until August 1970 and ended with a ceasefire, the frontiers remaining the same as when the war began, with no real commitment to serious peace negotiations.
Palestinians in Jordan
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in late 1947 led to civil war, the end of Mandatory Palestine, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. With nationhood, the ongoing civil war was transformed into a state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, invaded Palestine. They took control of the Arab areas, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The fighting was halted with the UN-mediated 1949 Armistice Agreements, but the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Egypt and Transjordan. In 1949, Transjordan officially changed its name to Jordan. In 1950, it annexed the West Bank of the Jordan River, and brought Palestinian representation into the government.
Only one-third of the population consisted of native Jordanians, which meant that Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics, and played a critical role in political opposition. The West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem, which was the key issue of Jordan’s domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled “life or death” for Jordan, and would remain the country’s overriding national security issue.
King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, who gave financial support.
The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and Israel was subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian fedayeen; these often drew reprisals. The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. However, due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population, many of King Hussein’s orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border were lending passive assistance to the Palestinian raids.
Only one-third of the population consisted of native Jordanians, which meant that Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics, and played a critical role in political opposition. The West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem, which was the key issue of Jordan’s domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled “life or death” for Jordan, and would remain the country’s overriding national security issue.
King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, who gave financial support.
The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and Israel was subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian fedayeen; these often drew reprisals. The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. However, due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population, many of King Hussein’s orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border were lending passive assistance to the Palestinian raids.
Black September
Otherwise known as the Jordanian Civil War began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971. The conflict was fought between the two major components of the Jordanian population, the Palestinians represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and the native Jordanians represented by the Jordanian Armed Forces under the leadership of King Hussein.
At its core the civil war sought to determine if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite Monarchy. The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. The armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.
At its core the civil war sought to determine if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite Monarchy. The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. The armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.
Black September Group
The group Black September was established by Fatah members in 1971 to serve as a terrorist organization for revenge operations and international strikes after the September events. On November 28, 1971, in Cairo, four of its members assassinated Wasfi al-Tal, the Prime Minister of Jordan. The group would go on to perform other strikes against Jordan, and against Israeli and Western citizens and property outside of the Middle East.
Palestine: Part 16 – The 1972 Munich Massacre
Palestine: Part 16 – The 1972 Munich Massacre
Palestine: Part 16 – 1972 Munich Massacre
Palestine: Part 15 – Black September
After the events of Black September in Jordan, the rift between the Palestinian leadership and the Kingdom of Jordan continued to widen. The Arab League affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and called on all the Arab states, including Jordan, to undertake the defense of Palestinian national unity and not to interfere in internal Palestinian affairs. The Arab League also ‘affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.’
King Ḥussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament. Half of its members had been West Bank representatives. He renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank, and allowed the PLO to assume responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine. The Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria no longer acted as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, or their territory.
1972 Munich Massacre
The Munich massacre was an attack during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany, on 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team, who were taken hostage and eventually killed, along with a German police officer, by Black September. Shortly after the crisis began, they demanded the release of 234 prisoners held in Israeli jails, and the release of the founders of the German Red Army Faction, who were held in German prisons. Black September called the operation “Iqrit and Biram”, after two Palestinian Christian villages whose inhabitants were expelled by the Haganah in 1948.
The attackers were apparently given logistical assistance by German neo-Nazis. Five of the eight members of Black September were killed by police officers during a failed rescue attempt. The three surviving attackers were captured, but later released by West Germany following the hijacking of a Lufthansa airliner. Israel responded to the killers’ release with Operation “Spring of Youth” and Operation “Wrath of God”.
The attackers were apparently given logistical assistance by German neo-Nazis. Five of the eight members of Black September were killed by police officers during a failed rescue attempt. The three surviving attackers were captured, but later released by West Germany following the hijacking of a Lufthansa airliner. Israel responded to the killers’ release with Operation “Spring of Youth” and Operation “Wrath of God”.
Israeli Response
On 8 September, Israeli planes bombed ten PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon in response to the massacre. Up to 200 people were killed. On 9 April 1973, Israel launched Operation “Spring of Youth”, a joint Mossad-IDF operation in Beirut. The targets were the head of Fatah’s intelligence arm, which ran Black September, the head of the PLO’s so-called Western Sector, which controlled PLO action inside Israel; and the PLO spokesman.
A group of Sayeret commandos were taken in nine missile boats and a small fleet of patrol boats to a deserted Lebanese beach, before driving in two cars to downtown Beirut, where they killed all three targets. Two further detachments of commandos blew up the PFLP’s headquarters in Beirut and a Fatah explosives plant. The leader of the commando team that conducted the operations was Ehud Barak.
On 21 July 1973, in the so-called Lillehammer affair, a team of Mossad agents mistakenly killed a Moroccan man unrelated to the Munich attack, in Lillehammer, Norway, after an informant mistakenly said that man was the head of Force 17 and a Black September operative. Five Mossad agents, including two women, were captured by the Norwegian authorities, while others managed to slip away. The five were convicted of the killing and imprisoned, but were released and returned to Israel in 1975.
The massacre prompted many European countries to establish permanent, professional, and immediately available counter-terrorism forces, or reorganize already existing units to such purpose. The massacre also prompted prominent arms designers and manufacturers to produce new types of weapons more suitable for counter-terrorism.
Palestine: Part 17 – Ten Point Program
A group of Sayeret commandos were taken in nine missile boats and a small fleet of patrol boats to a deserted Lebanese beach, before driving in two cars to downtown Beirut, where they killed all three targets. Two further detachments of commandos blew up the PFLP’s headquarters in Beirut and a Fatah explosives plant. The leader of the commando team that conducted the operations was Ehud Barak.
On 21 July 1973, in the so-called Lillehammer affair, a team of Mossad agents mistakenly killed a Moroccan man unrelated to the Munich attack, in Lillehammer, Norway, after an informant mistakenly said that man was the head of Force 17 and a Black September operative. Five Mossad agents, including two women, were captured by the Norwegian authorities, while others managed to slip away. The five were convicted of the killing and imprisoned, but were released and returned to Israel in 1975.
The massacre prompted many European countries to establish permanent, professional, and immediately available counter-terrorism forces, or reorganize already existing units to such purpose. The massacre also prompted prominent arms designers and manufacturers to produce new types of weapons more suitable for counter-terrorism.
Palestine: Part 17 – Ten Point Program
Palestine: Part 17 – Ten Point Program
Palestine: Part 16 – Munich Massacre
During the 12th Palestinian National Congress amidst tension in Lebanon, the Palestinian National Council approved the Ten Point Program formulated by Fatah’s leaders, which calls for the establishment of a national authority over any piece of captured Palestinian land, and to actively pursue the establishment of a democratic state in Israel/Palestine. The Ten Point Program was considered the first attempt by the PLO at a peaceful resolution, though the ultimate goal was “completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity.”
You’ve Gone Soft
Despite the fact that the Ten Point Program calls for the elimination of Israel, it led to several radical PLO factions which also fought to eliminate Israel. They broke out to form the Rejectionist Front, a political coalition formed by radical Palestinian factions who rejected the Ten Point Program adopted by the PLO, that would act independently of PLO over the following years. Suspicion between the mainstream and more hard-line factions, inside and outside the PLO, have continued to dominate the inner workings of the organization ever since, often resulting in paralysis or conflicting courses of action.
Stage Program
Israel claimed to see the Ten Point Program as dangerous, because it allegedly allows the Palestinian leadership to enter negotiations with Israel on issues where Israel can compromise, but under the intention of exploiting the compromises in order to “improve positions” for attacking Israel. The Hebrew term for this is the “Plan of Stages” (Tokhnit HaSHlabim).
During future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, some Israelis repeated this suspicion, claiming that the Palestinians’ willingness to compromise was just a smoke-screen to implement the Ten Point Program. Israeli right-wing politicians claim that they are all parts of a ploy to implement the Stage Program as Yasser Arafat himself admitted in Arabic many times. The Ten Point Program has never been officially cancelled by Palestinians.
Palestine: Part 18 – Lebanese Civil War
During future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, some Israelis repeated this suspicion, claiming that the Palestinians’ willingness to compromise was just a smoke-screen to implement the Ten Point Program. Israeli right-wing politicians claim that they are all parts of a ploy to implement the Stage Program as Yasser Arafat himself admitted in Arabic many times. The Ten Point Program has never been officially cancelled by Palestinians.
Palestine: Part 18 – Lebanese Civil War
Palestine: Part 18 – Lebanese Civil War
Palestine: Part 17 – Ten Point Program
After Palestinian groups were expelled from Jordan, during the 1970s, the PLO was effectively an umbrella group of eight organizations headquartered in Damascus and Beirut, all devoted to armed resistance to either Zionism or Israeli occupation, using methods which included direct clashing and guerrilla warfare against Israel. After Black September, the Cairo Agreement (agreement established principles under which the presence and activities of Palestinian guerrillas in southeast Lebanon would be tolerated and regulated by the Lebanese authorities) led the PLO to establish itself in Lebanon.
1974 Arab League Summit
At the conference, Jordan and the other members of the Arab League declared that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was the “sole legitimate representative of the [Arab] Palestinian people”, thereby relinquishing to that organization its role as representative of the West Bank. The summit shaped the future of the conflict in several ways.
First, it forced King Hussein to relinquish his claim to be able to speak for the Palestinians and to acknowledge that a future Palestinian state would have to be independent of Jordan. Second, it “weakened the American position. America agreed with the Israel that it was preferable to negotiate with Hussein rather than the PLO.
First, it forced King Hussein to relinquish his claim to be able to speak for the Palestinians and to acknowledge that a future Palestinian state would have to be independent of Jordan. Second, it “weakened the American position. America agreed with the Israel that it was preferable to negotiate with Hussein rather than the PLO.
Lebanese Civil War
Lasting from 1975 to 1990, the multifaceted was resulted in an estimated 120,000 fatalities, and 76,000 people still displaced within Lebanon today. There was also a mass exodus of almost one million people from Lebanon.
Before the war, Lebanon was multisectarian, with Sunnis dominating the coasts, Shias dominating the south, while the government of Lebanon had been dominated by Maronite Christians. The link between politics and religion had been reinforced under the mandate of the French colonial powers from 1920 to 1943, and the parliamentary structure favored a leading position for the Christians.
However, the country had a large Muslim population and many pan-Arabist and Left Wing groups which opposed the pro-western government. The establishment of the state of Israel and the displacement of a hundred thousand Palestinian refugees to Lebanon changed the demographic balance in favor of the Muslim population. The Cold War had a powerful disintegrative effect on Lebanon, which was closely linked to the polarization that preceded the 1958 political crisis (intervention lasting around three months where American and Lebanese government forces successfully occupied the port and international airport of Beirut at the request of the Lebanese president), since Maronites sided with the West while Left Wing and pan-Arab groups sided with Soviet aligned Arab countries.
The militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of the PLO forces after their expulsion from Jordan during Black September, sparked an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions and provided a foundation for the long-term involvement of Lebanon in regional conflicts. Fighting between Maronite and Palestinian forces began in 1975, and Left Wing, pan-Arabist and Muslim Lebanese groups later allied themselves with the Palestinians.
During the course of the fighting, alliances shifted rapidly and unpredictably. By the end of the war, seemingly every party had allied with and subsequently betrayed every other party at least once. Furthermore, foreign powers, such as Israel and Syria, became involved in the war and fought alongside different factions.
Peace keeping forces, such as the Multinational Force in Lebanon (international peacekeeping force created after the demand was made by Lebanon to the UN’s secretary-general, and initially to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization composed of contingents of the United States Marines and Navy SEALs, units of the French 11th Parachute Brigade,the 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment, the 2nd Foreign Infantry Regiment, the 1st Foreign Cavalry Regiment, other units of the French Foreign Legion, Italian soldiers, and British soldiers) and United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (created to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon which Israel had invaded, restore international peace and security, and help the Government of Lebanon restore its effective authority in the area), were also stationed in Lebanon.
The Taif Agreement of marked the beginning of the end of the fighting. A committee appointed by the Arab League began to formulate solutions to the conflict. In March 1991, parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crimes prior to its enactment. All militias were dissolved, with the exception of Hezbollah, while the Lebanese Armed Forces began to slowly rebuild as Lebanon’s only major non-sectarian institution. Tensions between Sunnis and Shias remained after the war.
Palestine: Part 19 – Syria in Lebanon
Before the war, Lebanon was multisectarian, with Sunnis dominating the coasts, Shias dominating the south, while the government of Lebanon had been dominated by Maronite Christians. The link between politics and religion had been reinforced under the mandate of the French colonial powers from 1920 to 1943, and the parliamentary structure favored a leading position for the Christians.
However, the country had a large Muslim population and many pan-Arabist and Left Wing groups which opposed the pro-western government. The establishment of the state of Israel and the displacement of a hundred thousand Palestinian refugees to Lebanon changed the demographic balance in favor of the Muslim population. The Cold War had a powerful disintegrative effect on Lebanon, which was closely linked to the polarization that preceded the 1958 political crisis (intervention lasting around three months where American and Lebanese government forces successfully occupied the port and international airport of Beirut at the request of the Lebanese president), since Maronites sided with the West while Left Wing and pan-Arab groups sided with Soviet aligned Arab countries.
The militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of the PLO forces after their expulsion from Jordan during Black September, sparked an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions and provided a foundation for the long-term involvement of Lebanon in regional conflicts. Fighting between Maronite and Palestinian forces began in 1975, and Left Wing, pan-Arabist and Muslim Lebanese groups later allied themselves with the Palestinians.
During the course of the fighting, alliances shifted rapidly and unpredictably. By the end of the war, seemingly every party had allied with and subsequently betrayed every other party at least once. Furthermore, foreign powers, such as Israel and Syria, became involved in the war and fought alongside different factions.
Peace keeping forces, such as the Multinational Force in Lebanon (international peacekeeping force created after the demand was made by Lebanon to the UN’s secretary-general, and initially to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization composed of contingents of the United States Marines and Navy SEALs, units of the French 11th Parachute Brigade,the 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment, the 2nd Foreign Infantry Regiment, the 1st Foreign Cavalry Regiment, other units of the French Foreign Legion, Italian soldiers, and British soldiers) and United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (created to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon which Israel had invaded, restore international peace and security, and help the Government of Lebanon restore its effective authority in the area), were also stationed in Lebanon.
The Taif Agreement of marked the beginning of the end of the fighting. A committee appointed by the Arab League began to formulate solutions to the conflict. In March 1991, parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crimes prior to its enactment. All militias were dissolved, with the exception of Hezbollah, while the Lebanese Armed Forces began to slowly rebuild as Lebanon’s only major non-sectarian institution. Tensions between Sunnis and Shias remained after the war.
Palestine: Part 19 – Syria in Lebanon
Palestine: Part 19 – Syria in Lebanon
Palestine: Part 18 – Lebanese Civil War
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon began in 1976 as a result of the Lebanese Civil War and ended in 2005 in response to domestic and international pressure after the assassination of a former Lebanese Prime Minister. In January 1976, a Syrian proposal to restore the limits to the Palestinian guerrilla presence in Lebanon, which had been in place prior to the outbreak of the civil war, was welcomed by Maronites and conservative Muslims, but rejected by the Palestinian guerrillas and their Lebanese led and leftist allies.
In June 1976, to deal with the opposition posed by this latter group (which was normally allied with Syria), Syria dispatched Palestinian units under its control into Lebanon, and soon after sent in its own troops as well. Syria claims these interventions came in response to appeals from Christian villagers under attack by Leftists in Lebanon.
By October 1976, Syria had caused significant damage to the strength of the Leftists and their Palestinian allies, but at a meeting of the Arab League, it was forced to accept a ceasefire. The League ministers decided to expand an existing small Arab peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but it grew to be a large Arab Deterrent Force (international peacekeeping force) consisting almost entirely of Syrian troops. The Syrian military intervention was thus legitimized and received subsidies from the Arab League for its activities.
Military Occupation
Was the Syrian presence a military occupation (effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign) under international law? The mandate of the Force was renewed several times before it officially expired on July 27, 1982.
The Lebanese government refused to request that the mandate be renewed by the Arab League and instead, in September 1986, Lebanon actually requested an end to the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Now, lacking legal authority from both Lebanon and the Arab League, Syria’s military forces probably had to be regarded from that point on as illegal occupants of Lebanon.
The Lebanese government refused to request that the mandate be renewed by the Arab League and instead, in September 1986, Lebanon actually requested an end to the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Now, lacking legal authority from both Lebanon and the Arab League, Syria’s military forces probably had to be regarded from that point on as illegal occupants of Lebanon.
Beirut’s Own Civil War
At the final accords of the Lebanese Civil War, two rival administrations were formed in Lebanon. There was a military one in East Beirut and a civilian one in West Beirut. The latter gained the support of the Syrians.
The military opposed the Syrian presence in Lebanon, citing the 1982 UN Security Council Resolution 520 (demand that Israel withdraw immediately from Lebanon, and that Lebanese sovereignty be respected in order to restore a stable government in Lebanon.) In the resulting “War of Liberation”, which erupted in March 1989, the military was defeated and their leader was exiled from Lebanon.
The military opposed the Syrian presence in Lebanon, citing the 1982 UN Security Council Resolution 520 (demand that Israel withdraw immediately from Lebanon, and that Lebanese sovereignty be respected in order to restore a stable government in Lebanon.) In the resulting “War of Liberation”, which erupted in March 1989, the military was defeated and their leader was exiled from Lebanon.
“Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination”
The hopefully named treaty, signed between Lebanon and Syria in 1991, legitimized the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. It stipulated that Lebanon would not be made a threat to Syria’s security and that Syria was responsible for protecting Lebanon from external threats. In September that same year a Defense and Security Pact was enacted between the two countries.
Following the assassination of the Lebanese ex-premier in 2005, and an alleged involvement of Syria in his death, the Cedar Revolution, a chain of demonstrations in Lebanon and especially Beirut triggered by the assassination, swept the country. With the consequent adoption of UN resolution 1559, Syria was forced to announce its full withdrawal from Lebanon on April 30, 2005.
Palestine: Part 20 – Jerusalem
Following the assassination of the Lebanese ex-premier in 2005, and an alleged involvement of Syria in his death, the Cedar Revolution, a chain of demonstrations in Lebanon and especially Beirut triggered by the assassination, swept the country. With the consequent adoption of UN resolution 1559, Syria was forced to announce its full withdrawal from Lebanon on April 30, 2005.
Palestine: Part 20 – Jerusalem
Palestine: Part 20 – Jerusalem
Palestine: Part 19 – Syria in Lebanon
From 1517 until the First World War, Jerusalem was part of the Ottoman Empire. Since the 1860s, Jews have formed the largest religious group in the city and since around 1887 Jews have been in the majority.
In the 19th century, European powers vied for influence in the city, usually on the basis of extending protection over Christian churches and Holy Places. A number of these countries also established consulates in Jerusalem. In 1917 and following the First World War, Great Britain was in control of Jerusalem; from 1923 as part of the Mandate of Palestine.
In the Partition of Palestine, Jerusalem was established as a corpus separatum, or a “separated body” with a special legal and political status, administered by the United Nations. While many states accepted the newly formed Israeli state in 1948, none recognized its sovereignty over Jerusalem generally citing the UN resolutions which called for an international status for the city.
The 1949 Armistice Agreements left Jordan in control of the eastern parts of the city, while the western sector was held by Israel. Each side recognised the other’s de facto control of their respective sectors. The Armistice Agreement, however, was considered internationally as having no legal effect on the continued validity of the provisions of the partition resolution for the internationalization of Jerusalem. Soon after Israel declared that Jerusalem was an inseparable part of the State of Israel and its eternal capital. In 1950, Jordan annexed eastern Jerusalem. Though the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized Jordanian rule over eastern Jerusalem, no other foreign country recognized either Jordanian or Israeli rule over the respective areas of the city under their control.
Following the 1967 war, Israel declared that Israeli law would be applied to East Jerusalem and enlarged its eastern boundaries, approximately doubling its size. The action was deemed unlawful by other states who did not recognize it. It was condemned by the UN Security Council and General Assembly who described it as an annexation in violation of the rights of the Palestinian population. Israel would later pass a law declaring that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. The law was declared null and void by the Security council in Resolution 478 and in numerous resolutions by the UN General assembly.
From 1517 until the First World War, Jerusalem was part of the Ottoman Empire. Since the 1860s, Jews have formed the largest religious group in the city and since around 1887 Jews have been in the majority.
In the 19th century, European powers vied for influence in the city, usually on the basis of extending protection over Christian churches and Holy Places. A number of these countries also established consulates in Jerusalem. In 1917 and following the First World War, Great Britain was in control of Jerusalem; from 1923 as part of the Mandate of Palestine.
In the Partition of Palestine, Jerusalem was established as a corpus separatum, or a “separated body” with a special legal and political status, administered by the United Nations. While many states accepted the newly formed Israeli state in 1948, none recognized its sovereignty over Jerusalem generally citing the UN resolutions which called for an international status for the city.
The 1949 Armistice Agreements left Jordan in control of the eastern parts of the city, while the western sector was held by Israel. Each side recognised the other’s de facto control of their respective sectors. The Armistice Agreement, however, was considered internationally as having no legal effect on the continued validity of the provisions of the partition resolution for the internationalization of Jerusalem. Soon after Israel declared that Jerusalem was an inseparable part of the State of Israel and its eternal capital. In 1950, Jordan annexed eastern Jerusalem. Though the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized Jordanian rule over eastern Jerusalem, no other foreign country recognized either Jordanian or Israeli rule over the respective areas of the city under their control.
Following the 1967 war, Israel declared that Israeli law would be applied to East Jerusalem and enlarged its eastern boundaries, approximately doubling its size. The action was deemed unlawful by other states who did not recognize it. It was condemned by the UN Security Council and General Assembly who described it as an annexation in violation of the rights of the Palestinian population. Israel would later pass a law declaring that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. The law was declared null and void by the Security council in Resolution 478 and in numerous resolutions by the UN General assembly.
Jerusalem
There are differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem held within the international community. No country in the world except for Israel has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel’s. Many UN member states formally adhere to the United Nations proposal that Jerusalem should have an international (autonomous or semi-autonomous city-state that is separate from the direct supervision of any single nation-state) status.
The chief dispute revolves around Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem. By law, the majority of UN member states and most international organizations do not recognize Israel’s ownership of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its later Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a “complete and united” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As a result, foreign embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs.
Jerusalem remains a contentious issue in final status peace talks between Israel and Palestine, both of which claim Jerusalem as their capital. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.” Other organizations and communities advocate that Jerusalem should be an international city.
Palestine: Part 21 – Right of Return
The chief dispute revolves around Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem. By law, the majority of UN member states and most international organizations do not recognize Israel’s ownership of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its later Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a “complete and united” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As a result, foreign embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs.
Jerusalem remains a contentious issue in final status peace talks between Israel and Palestine, both of which claim Jerusalem as their capital. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.” Other organizations and communities advocate that Jerusalem should be an international city.
Palestine: Part 21 – Right of Return
Palestine: Part 21 – Right of Return
Palestine: Part 20 – Jerusalem
The number of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war is estimated at between 700,000 and 800,000, and another 280,000 to 350,000 people were refugees of the 1967 war. Approximately 120,000-170,000 among the 1967 refugees are believed to have also been refugees from the 1948 war, fleeing a second time. Today, the estimated number of Palestinian refugees, including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, exceeds four million.
The issue of the right of return has been of great importance to Palestinians since 1948, when the refugee problem was created. In June 1948, the Israeli government stated its position, which was reiterated in a letter to the United Nations on 2 August 1949, that in its view a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem must be sought, not through the return of the refugees to Israel, but through the resettlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee population in other states.
The first formal move towards the recognition of a right of return was in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 passed on 11 December 1948 which provided (Article 11):
“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good-by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
However, General Assembly resolutions are not binding in international law, and future agreements would deliberately omit any mention of these resolutions.
The right of return was defined as the “foremost of Palestinian rights” at the 12th Palestine National Council meeting in 1974 when it became the first component of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s trinity of inalienable rights, the others being the right of self-determination and the right to an independent state.
The Palestinian Right of Return
It is the political position or principle asserting that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees (c. 30 to 50,000 people as of 2012) and their descendants (c. 5 million people as of 2012), have a right to return, and a right to the property they themselves or their forebears left behind in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories (both formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine), as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, a result of the 1948 Palestine war and due to the 1967 Six-Day War.
Proponents of the right of return hold that it is a “sacred” right, as well as an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specifically to the Palestinians is protected under international law. This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.
The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement. Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) by which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.
Palestine: Part 22 – Camp David Accords
Proponents of the right of return hold that it is a “sacred” right, as well as an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specifically to the Palestinians is protected under international law. This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.
The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement. Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) by which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.
Palestine: Part 22 – Camp David Accords
Palestine: Part 22 – Camp David Accords
Camp David Accords
The Camp David Accords were signed on September 17, 1978 following thirteen days of secret negotiations at Camp David. The two framework agreements were signed at the White House, and were witnessed by United States President Jimmy Carter. The second of these frameworks (A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel) led directly to the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. Due to the agreement, Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received the shared 1978 Nobel Peace Prize. The first framework (A Framework for Peace in the Middle East), which dealt with the Palestinian territories, was written without participation of the Palestinians and had little impact and was condemned by the United Nations.
West Bank and Gaza
Egypt and Israel agreed that there should be transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza for a period not exceeding five years. The Israeli military government and its civilian administration would be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government.
Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on how to establish elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed. Powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be exercised in the West Bank and Gaza were to be defined.
A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces would take place and a redeployment of remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations. Included are arrangements for assuring internal and external security and public order. A strong local police force will be established, which may include Jordanian citizens. Israeli and Jordanian forces would participate in joint patrols and in the manning of control posts to assure the security of the borders.
When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin. No later than the third year after the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors and to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the end of the transitional period.
These negotiations will be conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations were based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian people and their just requirements.
The framework concerned autonomy of the inhabitants of West Bank and Gaza. It didn’t mention the status of Jerusalem, nor the Palestinian Right of Return.
Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on how to establish elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed. Powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be exercised in the West Bank and Gaza were to be defined.
A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces would take place and a redeployment of remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations. Included are arrangements for assuring internal and external security and public order. A strong local police force will be established, which may include Jordanian citizens. Israeli and Jordanian forces would participate in joint patrols and in the manning of control posts to assure the security of the borders.
When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin. No later than the third year after the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors and to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the end of the transitional period.
These negotiations will be conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations were based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian people and their just requirements.
The framework concerned autonomy of the inhabitants of West Bank and Gaza. It didn’t mention the status of Jerusalem, nor the Palestinian Right of Return.
U.N. Rejection
The UN General Assembly rejected the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, because the agreement was concluded without participation of UN and PLO and did not comply with the Palestinian right of return, nor of self-determination and to national independence and sovereignty. In Resolution 33/28 A, the U.N. declared agreements were only valid if they are within the framework of the United Nations and its Charter and its resolutions, include the Palestinian right of return and the right to national independence and sovereignty in Palestine, and concluded with the participation of the PLO.
Consequences
The time that has elapsed since the Camp David Accords has left no doubt as to their enormous ramifications on Middle Eastern politics. They led to the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat by dissatisfied Islamic extremists from within Egypt. The group was outraged over the president’s decision to make peace with Israel.
The perception of Egypt within the Arab world changed. With the most powerful of the Arab militaries and a history of leadership in the Arab world under Nasser, Egypt had more leverage than any of the other Arab states to advance Arab interests. Egypt was subsequently suspended from the Arab League from 1979 until 1989.
Jordan’s objective to reassert its control over the West Bank was circumscribed. Focusing as it did on Egypt, the Carter administration accepted Sadat’s claim that he could deliver Hussein. However, with Arab world opposition building against Sadat, Jordan could not risk accepting the Accords without the support from powerful Arab neighbours, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. That’s a burn diplomatically.
The united Arab front in opposition to Israel disintegrated. Egypt’s realignment created a power vacuum that Saddam Hussein of Iraq, at one time only a secondary power, hoped to fill.
Because of the vague language concerning the implementation of Resolution 242, the Palestinian problem became the primary issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict immediately following and in my opinion until today). Many of the Arab nations blamed Egypt for not putting enough pressure on Israel to deal with the Palestinian problem in a way that would be satisfactory to them. Syria also informed Egypt that it would not reconcile with the nation unless it abandoned the peace agreement with Israel
The success of Begin, Sadat, and Carter at Camp David demonstrated to other Arab states and entities that negotiations with Israel were possible—that progress results only from sustained efforts at communication and cooperation. Future attempts at negotiations would not be possible without Camp David.
Palestine: Part 23 – Venice Declaration
The perception of Egypt within the Arab world changed. With the most powerful of the Arab militaries and a history of leadership in the Arab world under Nasser, Egypt had more leverage than any of the other Arab states to advance Arab interests. Egypt was subsequently suspended from the Arab League from 1979 until 1989.
Jordan’s objective to reassert its control over the West Bank was circumscribed. Focusing as it did on Egypt, the Carter administration accepted Sadat’s claim that he could deliver Hussein. However, with Arab world opposition building against Sadat, Jordan could not risk accepting the Accords without the support from powerful Arab neighbours, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. That’s a burn diplomatically.
The united Arab front in opposition to Israel disintegrated. Egypt’s realignment created a power vacuum that Saddam Hussein of Iraq, at one time only a secondary power, hoped to fill.
Because of the vague language concerning the implementation of Resolution 242, the Palestinian problem became the primary issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict immediately following and in my opinion until today). Many of the Arab nations blamed Egypt for not putting enough pressure on Israel to deal with the Palestinian problem in a way that would be satisfactory to them. Syria also informed Egypt that it would not reconcile with the nation unless it abandoned the peace agreement with Israel
The success of Begin, Sadat, and Carter at Camp David demonstrated to other Arab states and entities that negotiations with Israel were possible—that progress results only from sustained efforts at communication and cooperation. Future attempts at negotiations would not be possible without Camp David.
Palestine: Part 23 – Venice Declaration
Palestine: Part 23 – Venice Declaration
Venice Declaration
Palestinians saw the Camp David Accords as a blow to their aspirations to self-determination. The Venice Declaration (also known as the Declaration of the Venice Summit) was an agreement issued by the nine-member economic committee of the European Economic Committee (Belgium, Italy, France, West Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands and the UK), which met in June 1980 in conjunction with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declaration called for the acknowledgment of Palestinians’ right to self-government and the PLO’s right to be connected to peace initiatives.
European countries decided that the current negotiations (as coordinated by the United States) were not working, that the situation was serious, and that they needed to interfere. In justifying their role in the negotiations, the nine European countries cited their traditional and colonial ties to the region. They based the Venice Declaration onSecurity Council Resolution 242 and Security Council Resolution 338.
They emphasized, in the fourth point of the declaration, that they were primarily concerned with “the two principles universally accepted by the international community: the right to existence and to security of all States in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the people, which implies the recognition of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”. They also stated the need to establish boundaries in the Middle East and to maintain peace within them.
While they said it was important to resettle the Palestinian refugees, the European leaders also stressed the value of self-government for Palestinians and that, like the Israelis, they should be involved in the process of peaceful settlement. Furthermore, the Declaration asserts that these principles are necessary for the establishment of peace and that everyone involved, both Palestinian and Israeli, should have access to Jerusalem.
The nine European powers determined that Israel should “put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967.” They concluded by saying that force would be used to implement the Declaration and that they, the nine European powers, would reach out to the Middle Eastern nations in order to initiate the changes.
European countries decided that the current negotiations (as coordinated by the United States) were not working, that the situation was serious, and that they needed to interfere. In justifying their role in the negotiations, the nine European countries cited their traditional and colonial ties to the region. They based the Venice Declaration onSecurity Council Resolution 242 and Security Council Resolution 338.
They emphasized, in the fourth point of the declaration, that they were primarily concerned with “the two principles universally accepted by the international community: the right to existence and to security of all States in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the people, which implies the recognition of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”. They also stated the need to establish boundaries in the Middle East and to maintain peace within them.
While they said it was important to resettle the Palestinian refugees, the European leaders also stressed the value of self-government for Palestinians and that, like the Israelis, they should be involved in the process of peaceful settlement. Furthermore, the Declaration asserts that these principles are necessary for the establishment of peace and that everyone involved, both Palestinian and Israeli, should have access to Jerusalem.
The nine European powers determined that Israel should “put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967.” They concluded by saying that force would be used to implement the Declaration and that they, the nine European powers, would reach out to the Middle Eastern nations in order to initiate the changes.
Arafat’s Leadership
In short, the Venice Declaration sought to establish boundaries and secure peace. In order to achieve that, they wanted to grant self-determination to Palestinians and to limit the territorial policies of Israel. It was through Yasser Arafat’s efforts that the Palestinians’ right to self-government was recognized and that the PLO was established as the umbrella organization for Palestinians. Thus, Arafat was put in charge of implementing the Venice Declaration because he was the head of the PLO.
However, he was under a great deal of pressure from the Israeli right, who felt that the Declaration of Venice did not benefit them, and radical Arabs, who felt that the Declaration neglected the question of what to do with Jordan and the West Bank. Responses were also violent; Syria, through a Fatah official, contributed to the assassination of a PLO representative in Belgium.
However, he was under a great deal of pressure from the Israeli right, who felt that the Declaration of Venice did not benefit them, and radical Arabs, who felt that the Declaration neglected the question of what to do with Jordan and the West Bank. Responses were also violent; Syria, through a Fatah official, contributed to the assassination of a PLO representative in Belgium.
PLO Recognized
In 1981, there were clashes between offshoot groups of the PLO and Israelis. They formed a cease-fire, but that raised complications because it suggested that the Israelis accepted the PLO. Israel became threatened by the fact that the Palestinians and the PLO were officially recognized, which contributed to more heightened tensions.
Egyptian President Sadat suggested that Israel and the PLO participate in peace talks, but Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rejected his suggestion. Saudi Arabia wanted to forget Camp David, have Israel withdraw from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, and the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. Egypt wanted to preserve the Camp David Agreement. The United States treated the Venice Declaration and its aftermath carefully; they were committed to Camp David, but did not want to come into conflict with the Saudis.
Palestine: Part 24 – Is Peace Possible?
Egyptian President Sadat suggested that Israel and the PLO participate in peace talks, but Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rejected his suggestion. Saudi Arabia wanted to forget Camp David, have Israel withdraw from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, and the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. Egypt wanted to preserve the Camp David Agreement. The United States treated the Venice Declaration and its aftermath carefully; they were committed to Camp David, but did not want to come into conflict with the Saudis.
Palestine: Part 24 – Is Peace Possible?
Palestine: Part 24 – Is Peace Possible?
Palestine: Part 23 – Venice Declaration
After the Venice Convention, opposition to Arafat was fierce not only among radical Arab groups, but also among many on the Israeli right who felt that even if the PLO accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 and recognized Israel’s right to exist, Israel should never negotiate with the organization. This contradicted the official United States position that it would negotiate with the PLO if the PLO accepted Resolution 242 and recognized Israel, which the PLO had thus far been unwilling to do.
Other Arab voices had recently called for a diplomatic resolution to the hostilities in accord with the international consensus, including the Egyptian president on his visit to Washington, DC in August 1981, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in his August 7, 1981 peace proposal. Together with Arafat’s diplomatic maneuver, these developments made Israel’s argument that it had “no partner for peace” seem increasingly problematic. Thus, in the eyes of Israeli hard-liners, the Palestinians posed a greater challenge to Israel as a peacemaking organization than as a military one.
After the appointment of Ariel Sharon to the post of Minister of defence in 1981, the Israeli government policy of allowing political growth to occur in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip changed. The Israeli government tried, unsuccessfully, to dictate terms of political growth by replacing local pro-PLO leaders with an Israeli civil administration.
In 1982, after an attack on a senior Israeli diplomat by Lebanon-based Palestinian militants in Lebanon, Israel invaded Lebanon in a much larger scale in coordination with Lebanese Christian militias, reaching Beirut and eventually resulting in ousting of the PLO headquarters in June that year. Low-level Palestinian insurgency in Lebanon continued in parallel with the consolidation of Shia militant organizations, but became a secondary concern to Israeli military and other Lebanese factions. With the ousting of the PLO, the Lebanese Civil War gradually turned into a prolonged conflict, shifting from mainly PLO-Christian conflict into involvement of all Lebanese factions – whether Sunni, Shia, Druze, and Christians.
Palestine: Part 25 – 1982 Lebanon War
Palestine: Part 25 – 1982 Lebanon War
Palestine: Part 24 – Is Peace Possible?
The 1982 Lebanon War began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon. The Government of Israel launched the military operation after an assassination attempt against their ambassador to the United Kingdom which was used as justification for the invasion. This justification for the Lebanon invasion by Israel has been criticized given the 1974 split between the Palestinian group responsible for the assassination and Arafat’s PLO with their leader being Arafat’s mortal Palestinian enemy. Additionally, Israeli agents were also seeking to assassinate Fatah officials whom were based in Syria and not in Lebanon.
By expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), removing Syrian influence over Lebanon, and installing a pro-Israeli Christian government, Israel hoped to sign a treaty which was promised to give “forty years of peace”. However, the long occupation that followed Israel’s 1982 invasion had repercussions for Israel with Hezbollah being conceived to fight the Israeli occupation.
After attacking the PLO as well as Syrian, leftist, and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon eventually surrounding the PLO and elements of the Syrian army. Surrounded in West Beirut and subjected to heavy bombardment, the PLO forces and their allies negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of a United States Special Envoy and the protection of international peacekeepers. The PLO relocated its headquarters to Tripoli in June 1982.
However, following the assassination of the Lebanese President, Israel’s position in Beirut became untenable and the signing of a peace treaty became increasingly unlikely. Outrage following Israel’s role in the Phalangist-perpetrated Sabra and Shatila massacre, of mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites, and Israeli popular disillusionment with the war would lead to a gradual withdrawal from Beirut to southern Lebanon, which was initiated following the May 17 Agreement and Syria’s change of attitude towards the PLO.
After Israel had left most of Lebanon, the War of the Camps broke out between Lebanese factions, the PLO and Syria, in which Syria fought its former Palestinian allies. At the same time, Shi’a militant groups began consolidating and waging a low-intensity guerrilla war over the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, leading to 18 years of low-scale armed conflict. The Lebanese Civil War would continue until 1990, at which point Syria had established complete dominance over Lebanon.
Palestine: Part 26 – The First Intifada
Palestine: Part 26 – The First Intifada
Palestine: Part 25 – 1982 Lebanon War
In 1982, the PLO relocated to Tunis, Tunisia after it was driven out of Lebanon by Israel during Israel’s six-month invasion of Lebanon. Following massive raids by Israeli forces in Beirut, it is estimated that 8,000 PLO fighters evacuated the city and dispersed.
In 1985, Israeli Air Force F-15s bombed the PLO’s Tunis headquarters, killing more than 60 people in Operation Wooden Leg. The Tunis period was a negative point in the PLO’s history, and led to capitulation in future negotiations and the formation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PLO in exile was distant from a concentrated number of Palestinians and became far less effective. There was a significant reduction in centers of research, political debates, and journalistic endeavours that had encouraged an energized public presence of the PLO in Beirut. More and more Palestinians were abandoned, and many felt that this was the beginning of the end.
The First Intifada
The First Intifada or First Palestinian Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories lasting from December 1987 until the Madrid Conference in 1991 though some date its conclusion to 1993. The uprising began on December 9th in the Jabalia refugee camp after a series of escalating actions and deaths of Palestinian and Israeli citizens. Tensions reached a boiling point when an IDF truck struck a civilian car, killing four Palestinians. Rumors that the crash was deliberate quickly spread throughout Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In response to general strikes, boycotts of Israeli civil administration institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, civil disobedience in the face of army orders, and an economic boycott consisting of refusal to work in Israeli settlements on Israeli products, refusal to pay taxes, refusal to drive Palestinian cars with Israeli licenses, graffiti, barricading, and widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF and its infrastructure within the Palestinian territories. Israel, deploying some 80,000 soldiers and initially firing live rounds, killed a large numbers of Palestinians.
In the first 13 months, 332 Palestinians and 12 Israelis were killed. Given the high proportion of children, youths and civilians killed, Israel adopted a policy of ‘might, power, and beatings,’ namely “breaking Palestinians’ bones” and using live ammunition against civilians. The global diffusion of images of soldiers beating adolescents with clubs then led to the adoption of firing semi-lethal plastic bullets.
In the Intifada’s first year, Israeli security forces killed 311 Palestinians, of which 53 were under the age of 17. Over the first two years, according to Save the Children, an estimated 7% of all Palestinians under 18 years of age suffered injuries from shootings, beatings, or tear gas. Over six years, the Israeli Defense Forces killed an estimated 1200 Palestinians while Palestinians killed 100 Israeli civilians and 60 IDF personnel and injured more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 soldiers. Intra-Palestinian violence was also a prominent feature of the Intifada, with widespread executions of alleged Israeli collaborators, including an estimated 822 Palestinians killed as alleged collaborators between 1988 and 1994. It would be proven that fewer than half had any proven contact with the Israeli authorities.
In response to general strikes, boycotts of Israeli civil administration institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, civil disobedience in the face of army orders, and an economic boycott consisting of refusal to work in Israeli settlements on Israeli products, refusal to pay taxes, refusal to drive Palestinian cars with Israeli licenses, graffiti, barricading, and widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF and its infrastructure within the Palestinian territories. Israel, deploying some 80,000 soldiers and initially firing live rounds, killed a large numbers of Palestinians.
In the first 13 months, 332 Palestinians and 12 Israelis were killed. Given the high proportion of children, youths and civilians killed, Israel adopted a policy of ‘might, power, and beatings,’ namely “breaking Palestinians’ bones” and using live ammunition against civilians. The global diffusion of images of soldiers beating adolescents with clubs then led to the adoption of firing semi-lethal plastic bullets.
In the Intifada’s first year, Israeli security forces killed 311 Palestinians, of which 53 were under the age of 17. Over the first two years, according to Save the Children, an estimated 7% of all Palestinians under 18 years of age suffered injuries from shootings, beatings, or tear gas. Over six years, the Israeli Defense Forces killed an estimated 1200 Palestinians while Palestinians killed 100 Israeli civilians and 60 IDF personnel and injured more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 soldiers. Intra-Palestinian violence was also a prominent feature of the Intifada, with widespread executions of alleged Israeli collaborators, including an estimated 822 Palestinians killed as alleged collaborators between 1988 and 1994. It would be proven that fewer than half had any proven contact with the Israeli authorities.
Turning of the Tide
The intifada was neither a military nor a guerrilla conflict. The PLO had some control of the situation and never expected the uprising to make any direct gains against the Israeli state, as it was a grassroots, mass movement and not their venture. However, the Intifada did produce a number of results that Palestinians considered positive.
The Intifada resulted in international attention to the Palestinians’ cause. The Palestinians showed for the first time that there were two sides to the Israel-Palestine issue. Many American media outlets openly criticized Israel in a way that they had not before. Criticism of Israel also came from the United Nations, the European Community as well as the Arab states. The Intifada exposed many problems with the IDF’s conduct in the operative and tactical fields, and also the general problem of Israel’s prolonged control of the West Bank and Gaza strip. These problems were noticed and widely criticized.
By engaging the Israelis directly, rather than relying on the authority or the assistance of neighboring Arab states, Palestinians were able to demonstrate their identity as a separate nation worthy of self-determination. The failure of the “Iron Fist” policy, Israel’s deteriorating international image, and Jordan cutting legal and administrative ties to the West Bank along with U.S. recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people forced Israel to seek an end to the violence though negotiation and dialogue with the PLO.
Palestine: Part 27 – Persian Gulf and Oslo
The Intifada resulted in international attention to the Palestinians’ cause. The Palestinians showed for the first time that there were two sides to the Israel-Palestine issue. Many American media outlets openly criticized Israel in a way that they had not before. Criticism of Israel also came from the United Nations, the European Community as well as the Arab states. The Intifada exposed many problems with the IDF’s conduct in the operative and tactical fields, and also the general problem of Israel’s prolonged control of the West Bank and Gaza strip. These problems were noticed and widely criticized.
By engaging the Israelis directly, rather than relying on the authority or the assistance of neighboring Arab states, Palestinians were able to demonstrate their identity as a separate nation worthy of self-determination. The failure of the “Iron Fist” policy, Israel’s deteriorating international image, and Jordan cutting legal and administrative ties to the West Bank along with U.S. recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people forced Israel to seek an end to the violence though negotiation and dialogue with the PLO.
Palestine: Part 27 – Persian Gulf and Oslo
Palestine: Part 27 – Persian Gulf and Oslo
Palestine: Part 26 – The First Intifada
The Intifada caught the PLO by surprise and the leadership abroad could only indirectly influence the events. A new local leadership emerged, the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising (UNLU), comprising many leading Palestinian factions. After King Hussein of Jordan proclaimed the administrative and legal separation of the West Bank from Jordan in 1988, the Palestine National Council adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in Algiers, proclaiming an independent State of Palestine. The declaration made reference to UN resolutions without explicitly mentioning Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
Persian Gulf War
The Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait took place during and after the Gulf War. There were 400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait before the Gulf War. During the Gulf War, 200,000 Palestinians voluntarily fled Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait due to various reasons (food shortages, medical care difficulties, financial shortages, fear of arrest and mistreatment at roadblocks by Iraqis). After the Gulf War in 1991, nearly 200,000 Palestinians fled Kuwait, partly due to economic burdens, regulations on residence and fear of abuse by Kuwaiti security forces. The policy which partly led to this exodus was a response to the alignment of PLO leader Yasser Arafat with Saddam Hussein.
Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO): the Oslo I Accord, signed in Oslo in 1993 and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba in 1995. The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and to fulfill the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”. The Oslo process started after secret negotiations in Oslo, resulting in the recognition by the PLO of the State of Israel and the recognition by Israel of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as a partner in negotiations.
The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority, whose functions are the limited self-governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and, it acknowledged that the PLO is now Israel’s partner in permanent status negotiations about the remaining issues. The most important issues are the borders of Israel and Palestine, the Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the question of Israel’s military presence in and control over the remaining territories after the recognition of the Palestinian autonomy by Israel, and the Palestinian right of return. The Oslo Accords, however, did not create a Palestinian state.
Specifically, The Accords granted the Palestinians right to self-government on the Gaza Strip and the city of Jericho in the West Bank through the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Yasser Arafat was appointed head of the Palestinian Authority and a timetable for elections was laid out which saw Arafat elected president. Although the PLO and the PA are not formally linked, the PLO dominates the administration.
Some Palestinian officials have stated that the peace treaty must be viewed as permanent. According to some polls, a majority of Israelis believed Palestinians should have a state of their own marking a major shift in attitude after Oslo though Israeli state officials opposed the creation of a Palestinian state both before and after the Accord. At the same time, a significant portion of the Israeli public and some political leaders express doubt over whether a peaceful, coherent state can be founded by the PLO, and called for significant re-organization, including the elimination of all terrorism, before any talk about independence.
Palestine: Part 28 – The Second Intifada
The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority, whose functions are the limited self-governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and, it acknowledged that the PLO is now Israel’s partner in permanent status negotiations about the remaining issues. The most important issues are the borders of Israel and Palestine, the Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the question of Israel’s military presence in and control over the remaining territories after the recognition of the Palestinian autonomy by Israel, and the Palestinian right of return. The Oslo Accords, however, did not create a Palestinian state.
Specifically, The Accords granted the Palestinians right to self-government on the Gaza Strip and the city of Jericho in the West Bank through the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Yasser Arafat was appointed head of the Palestinian Authority and a timetable for elections was laid out which saw Arafat elected president. Although the PLO and the PA are not formally linked, the PLO dominates the administration.
Some Palestinian officials have stated that the peace treaty must be viewed as permanent. According to some polls, a majority of Israelis believed Palestinians should have a state of their own marking a major shift in attitude after Oslo though Israeli state officials opposed the creation of a Palestinian state both before and after the Accord. At the same time, a significant portion of the Israeli public and some political leaders express doubt over whether a peaceful, coherent state can be founded by the PLO, and called for significant re-organization, including the elimination of all terrorism, before any talk about independence.
Palestine: Part 28 – The Second Intifada
Palestine: Part 28 – The Second Intifada
Camp David Summit
The 2000 Camp David Summit was a meeting at Camp David between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. The Summit took place between 11 and 25 July 11 and July 25, 2000 and was an effort to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It ended without an agreement.
There were four principal obstacles to agreement: territory, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, refugees and the ‘right of return’, and Israeli security concerns. On September 13 2000, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Legislative Council postponed the planned unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state.
There were four principal obstacles to agreement: territory, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, refugees and the ‘right of return’, and Israeli security concerns. On September 13 2000, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Legislative Council postponed the planned unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state.
The Second Intifada
The Second Intifada, a period of intensified Israeli-Palestinian violence, was the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. It started in September 2000, when the Israeli Prime Minister made a visit to the Temple Mount, seen by Palestinians as highly provocative; and Palestinian demonstrators, throwing stones at police, were dispersed by the Israeli army, using tear gas and rubber bullets.
Both parties caused high numbers of casualties among civilians as well as combatants: the Palestinians by numerous suicide bombing and gunfire; the Israelis by tank and gunfire and air attacks, by numerous targeted killings, and by harsh reactions on demonstrations. The death toll, including both military and civilian, is estimated to be about 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, as well as 64 foreigners.
The hostility took an extensive toll on both economies and societies. The cycle of violence, except for the short-lived Hudna in the summer of 2003; persisted as neither side was willing to negotiate until fire was halted. Eventually, Yasser Arafat, the man thought by many to have engineered the Intifada and to have kept it alive through four years, died in November 2004. Palestinian elections in 2005 left Mahmoud Abbas in power. His initial efforts to bring order to the anarchy of the Palestinian territories and halt attacks against Israel caused Ariel Sharon to change his attitude towards negotiations; he ordered the significant reduction of Israeli military activity in the Palestinian territories and made for many humanitarian steps in order to help the Palestinian civilians. These trust-building steps, together with renewed security coordination between the two sides and the backing of the U.S., Jordan and Egypt led to the agreement on holding a summit.
Both parties caused high numbers of casualties among civilians as well as combatants: the Palestinians by numerous suicide bombing and gunfire; the Israelis by tank and gunfire and air attacks, by numerous targeted killings, and by harsh reactions on demonstrations. The death toll, including both military and civilian, is estimated to be about 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, as well as 64 foreigners.
The hostility took an extensive toll on both economies and societies. The cycle of violence, except for the short-lived Hudna in the summer of 2003; persisted as neither side was willing to negotiate until fire was halted. Eventually, Yasser Arafat, the man thought by many to have engineered the Intifada and to have kept it alive through four years, died in November 2004. Palestinian elections in 2005 left Mahmoud Abbas in power. His initial efforts to bring order to the anarchy of the Palestinian territories and halt attacks against Israel caused Ariel Sharon to change his attitude towards negotiations; he ordered the significant reduction of Israeli military activity in the Palestinian territories and made for many humanitarian steps in order to help the Palestinian civilians. These trust-building steps, together with renewed security coordination between the two sides and the backing of the U.S., Jordan and Egypt led to the agreement on holding a summit.
Sharm el-Sheikh Summit
The Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of 2005 took place on February 8, when four Middle Eastern leaders gathered at Sharm el-Sheikh, a town at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, in order to declare their wish to work towards the end of the four-year Al-Aqsa Intifada. The four were: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority; Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; and King Abdullah II of Jordan. Some consider the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit on 8 February 2005 the end of the Second Intifada, when President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to stop all acts of violence against Israelis and Palestinians and reaffirmed their commitment to the Roadmap for peace
Palestine: Part 29 – Israeli Disengagement
Palestine: Part 29 – Israeli Disengagement
Palestine: Part 29 – Israeli Disengagement
Palestine: Part 28 – The Second Intifada
The Israeli disengagement from Gaza was the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza, and the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005. Four small settlements in the northern West Bank were also evacuated.
The disengagement was proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005. Those Israeli citizens who refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the August 15, 2005 deadline, were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days. The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by September 12, 2005. The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.
Israel ceded full effective internal control of the Strip to the Palestinian Authority but retained control of its borders including air and sea (except for the Egyptian border). This increased the percentage of land in the Gaza Strip nominally governed by the PA from 60 percent to 100 percent.
Hamas-Fatah Conflict
Palestinian legislative elections took place on January 25, 2006 which were won by Hamas; however, when a Hamas-led Palestinian government was formed, Israel, the United States, Canada, and the European Union froze all funds to the Palestinian Authority, after Hamas refused to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and to accept the past agreements. These countries view Hamas as a terrorist organization.
In December 2006, Hamas declared that the Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel. In an attempt to resolve the financial and diplomatic impasse, the Hamas-led government together with Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas agreed to form a unity government. The unity government was finally formed on March 18, 2007 and consisted of members from Hamas, Fatah and other parties and independents. The situation in the Gaza strip however quickly deteriorated into an open feud between the Hamas and Fatah.
In December 2006, Hamas declared that the Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel. In an attempt to resolve the financial and diplomatic impasse, the Hamas-led government together with Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas agreed to form a unity government. The unity government was finally formed on March 18, 2007 and consisted of members from Hamas, Fatah and other parties and independents. The situation in the Gaza strip however quickly deteriorated into an open feud between the Hamas and Fatah.
Battle of Gaza
The Battle of Gaza was a short military conflict between Fatah and Hamas, that took place in the Gaza Strip between 10 and 15 June 2007. It was a violent climax in the Fatah–Hamas conflict, centered around the struggle for power, after Fatah lost the parliamentary elections of 2006. Hamas fighters took control of the Gaza Strip and removed Fatah officials. The battle resulted in the dissolution of the unity government and the de facto division of the Palestinian territories into two entities, the West Bank governed by the Palestinian National Authority, and Gaza governed by Hamas.
After the takeover in Gaza by Hamas on June 14, 2007, the Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas dismissed the government. The new government’s authority is claimed to extend to all Palestinian territories, in effect it became limited to the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of the West Bank, as Hamas hasn’t recognized the move. The new government has won widespread international support. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia said in late June 2007 that the West Bank-based Cabinet formed by the new government was the sole legitimate Palestinian government, and Egypt moved its embassy from Gaza to the West Bank. Hamas, the government that has effective control of the Gaza Strip since 2007, faces international diplomatic and economic isolation.
After the takeover in Gaza by Hamas on June 14, 2007, the Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas dismissed the government. The new government’s authority is claimed to extend to all Palestinian territories, in effect it became limited to the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of the West Bank, as Hamas hasn’t recognized the move. The new government has won widespread international support. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia said in late June 2007 that the West Bank-based Cabinet formed by the new government was the sole legitimate Palestinian government, and Egypt moved its embassy from Gaza to the West Bank. Hamas, the government that has effective control of the Gaza Strip since 2007, faces international diplomatic and economic isolation.
Palestine: Part 30 – State of Palestine
Palestine: Part 29 – Israeli Disengagement
As of July 2009, about 305,000 Israelis lived in 121 settlements in the West Bank. The 2.4 million West Bank Palestinians (according to Palestinian evaluations) live primarily in four blocs centered in Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, and Jericho.
“Palestine 194”
In 2011, the PLO submitted an application for membership of Palestine in the United Nations. The campaign was formally backed by the Arab League. The decision was labelled by the Israeli government as a unilateral step, while the Palestinian government countered that it was essential to overcoming the current impasse. Several other countries, such as Germany and Canada, also denounced the decision and called for a prompt return to negotiations. However, many others, such as Norway and Russia, have endorsed the plan as did the UN Secretary-General.
State of Palestine
In 2012, it was reported that the Hamas Government in Gaza was considering declaring the independence of the Gaza Strip with the help of Egypt. The Foreign Minister of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) promised to renew efforts to upgrade the Palestinian (PLO) status to “full member state” at the U.N. General Assembly. By September 2012, with their application for full membership stalled due to the inability of Security Council members to “make a unanimous recommendation”, Palestine decided to pursue an upgrade in status from “observer entity” to “non-member observer state”. It was announced that the appeal had been officially made, and would be put to a vote in the General Assembly where their status upgrade was expected to be supported by a majority of states. In addition to granting Palestine “non-member observer state status”, the draft resolution “expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on September 23, 2011 by the Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations, endorses the two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders, and stresses the need for an immediate resumption of negotiations between the two parties”.
UN Status
In a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining), General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to “non-member observer state” status in the United Nations. The new status equates Palestine’s with that of the Holy See (ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome). The change in status was described by The Independent as “de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine”.
The UN has permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as “The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations”, and Palestine has started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports, whilst it has instructed its diplomats to officially represent “The State of Palestine”, as opposed to the ‘Palestine National Authority’. Additionally, on December 17, 2012, UN Chief of Protocol decided that “the designation of ‘State of Palestine’ shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents”, thus recognising the PLO-proclaimed State of Palestine as being sovereign over the territories Palestine and its citizens under international law.
As of February 2013, 131 (67.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognized the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine nevertheless recognize the PLO as the ‘representative of the Palestinian people’
Palestine: Conclusion
The UN has permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as “The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations”, and Palestine has started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports, whilst it has instructed its diplomats to officially represent “The State of Palestine”, as opposed to the ‘Palestine National Authority’. Additionally, on December 17, 2012, UN Chief of Protocol decided that “the designation of ‘State of Palestine’ shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents”, thus recognising the PLO-proclaimed State of Palestine as being sovereign over the territories Palestine and its citizens under international law.
As of February 2013, 131 (67.9%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognized the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine nevertheless recognize the PLO as the ‘representative of the Palestinian people’
Palestine: Conclusion
Palestine: Conclusion
Palestine: Part 30 – State of Palestine
Why does the battle still rage? Why, in my opinion, will it never cease? Resolvable issues that no one wants to resolve. I don’t see how there can be any other conclusion. These are what have been identified as the main issues from what we have covered. We do not include in issues violence committed by both Palestinians and Israelis outside of Palestine and Israel, intra-Palestinian violence as a result of the conflict, international status of Palestine, water resources, Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank, and the Gaza Blockade for we only briefly touched on a few of those issues if we touched on them at all.
Jerusalem
The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue, with each side asserting claims over this city. The three largest Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—include Jerusalem as an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Jerusalem is the holiest site in the world for Judaism.
The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is centered in the “new city” of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel’s founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, it assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel issued a new law stating, “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”
No country in the world except for Israel has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The majority of UN member states and most international organizations do not recognise Israel’s ownership of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation. The International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” described East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.”
The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is centered in the “new city” of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel’s founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, it assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel issued a new law stating, “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”
No country in the world except for Israel has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The majority of UN member states and most international organizations do not recognise Israel’s ownership of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation. The International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” described East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.”
Holy Sites
When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall or other Jewish holy places, and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated. Since 1975, Israel has banned Muslims from worshiping at Joseph’s Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims.
Palestinian Refugees
Palestinian refugees are people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict and the 1967 Six-Day War. Most of these people were born outside of Israel, but are descendants of original Palestinian refugees.
There is evidence that Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by various Jewish paramilitary organizations that destroyed Arab villages and forced removal of civilians. Also, citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world could be viewed as discrimination against non-Jews, especially Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship or return to the territory which they were expelled from or fled during the course of the 1948 war.
According to the UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948, “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good-by the Governments or authorities responsible.” UN Resolution 3236 “reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return”. On the other hand, Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”; however, it does not specify that the “just settlement” must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.
Israel claims during the 1948 War, the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear. The Israeli government asserts that the Arab refugee problem is largely caused by the refusal of all Arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who reside within those countries’ borders. Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world was ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, Israel insists that their return into the current state of Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.
Finally, Israel argues the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war who attempted to “cleanse” a neighboring ethnic community. Had the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947 recommending partition in Palestine not been subverted by force by the Arab world, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place.
There is evidence that Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by various Jewish paramilitary organizations that destroyed Arab villages and forced removal of civilians. Also, citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world could be viewed as discrimination against non-Jews, especially Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship or return to the territory which they were expelled from or fled during the course of the 1948 war.
According to the UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948, “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good-by the Governments or authorities responsible.” UN Resolution 3236 “reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return”. On the other hand, Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”; however, it does not specify that the “just settlement” must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.
Israel claims during the 1948 War, the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear. The Israeli government asserts that the Arab refugee problem is largely caused by the refusal of all Arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who reside within those countries’ borders. Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world was ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them. Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, Israel insists that their return into the current state of Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.
Finally, Israel argues the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war who attempted to “cleanse” a neighboring ethnic community. Had the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947 recommending partition in Palestine not been subverted by force by the Arab world, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place.
Security Concerns
The Israeli government initiated the construction of a security barrier following scores of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks in July 2003. Israel’s coalition government approved the security barrier in the northern part of the green-line between Israel and the West Bank. Since the erection of the fence, terrorist acts have declined by more than 90%. Since mid-June 2007, Israel’s primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with and permit United States-sponsored training, equipping, and funding of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, which with Israeli help have largely succeeded in quelling West Bank supporters of Hamas.
Palestine: Part 1 – The Dreyfus Affair
Palestine: Part 1 – The Dreyfus Affair
No comments:
Post a Comment