I will start by pointing some of the most important events that lead to the escalation of conflict. I will also try to present the main fighting sides and the interests of the second base players that appeared along. As I am neither a historian nor a critic, I choose to place some of my own comments along the tour through history.
1. Presenting the conflict through the historical perspective:
The much disputed territory is that which is known in the ”Old Testament” as the ”Promissed Land”, the land God promissed. This biblical motive, quickly became the best pretext for the Jewish people to reclame the territory as rightfull theirs. Even under this circumstances, the arabs had something to say as their argument lays in the fact that God promissed the land to all the sons of Abraham, one of them being Ishmael, considered to be the forefather of the arabs. But this argument does not stand in the eyes of the Western World or simply chooses to ignore it.
Of course this argument is only ment to provide a certain archaic historical ”legitimacy” to a people for a territory that happens to be inhabited by other people. The implications go far away to the XIX century. Until then, the history of the land may be resumed like that: The Jews took the biblical advice and moved to a territory that accidentaly was situated at the confluence of three worlds: european, asian and african. A territory some might see as extremly proper for spreading new ideas and even religion. They built Judeea that was afterwards occupied by Romans. The state was destroyed by the Romans, and the territory was later conquered by many nations, the last rulers being the Turkish people.
The territory was ruled by muslams for over a 1000 years. In the XIX century, as the anti-jewish convictions were increasing in Europe, especially in Russia and reappearing in France, the Jews reached the conclusion that they needed a state of their own, independent, only then could they have been safe. In the XIX century, the Zionist movement was born, having as main purpose the establishment of an independant state for all Jews. After several places have been taken into consideration, among them territories from Africa or South America, the former land of the former Judeea was chosen. The choice was based on a biblical belief according to which, that territory was the land promissed by God. The problem was that, while a Zionist slogan named Palestine ”a territory without people for a people without territory” that land WAS inhabited and was NOT free. At that time, the territory belonged to the Turkish Empire.
Taking into consideration all biblical pretextes, this conflict is not a religious one, the palestinian side does not consists only in muslam people but also in christians. This conflict is a territorial one, for the exclusive property of a land.
At the end of the Ist WW, when the Turkish Empire started to fell apart, the region came under British control. Great Britain persued the Ligue of Nations as to instate The Brithish Mandate over Palestine, a kind of a colony to administrate, until it would have become ready to gain its independance. In order to justify the ownership over arab land, the Great Britain acted as to have as one of its obligations to provide support for an establishment of a new home for Jews. Eventually, in 1947, the UN decided to interfere as a result of the escalation of violence within the region. All this taken into consideration, instead of supporting the democratic principles of Alexis de Tocqueville or Woodrow Wilson, that of ”the right of nations to self-determination” according to which, every nation is free and entitled to creat its own state and system of government, the UN has chosen to practice medieval strategies in which an outside power, arbitrarily chosen, decides to share other people's territories.
In 1947, the UN approved the sharing of the British Mandate over Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab. The sharing has been decided such: 55% of the territory went to Jews (at that time they represented only 30% of the population and owned only 7% of the land). The Arab Ligue rejected the plan, but on 14th of May 1948, after several failed attempts to split the land, Israel declared independent and self-proclamed as state. 5 Arab states invaded Israel, giving birth to the Israelian-Arab War. Israel occupied territories modifying its borders, but left at that moment the Jerusalim still divided. At the end of the 1948 War, the Jewish state, already proclamed Israel, had occupied 78% of the former Palestinian territory - much more than proposed even in the very generous separation plan of the UN. Many Palestinians became refugees, many cities were destroyed and a new map was written in which every course of water or valley had been given a new name, an Israelian one. All the rememberances of the Palestinian culture were going to be erradicated. For many decades, Israel and the United State denied the very existance of this population and at one point even Golda Meir said that "There is no such thing as a Palestinian".
There were 4 wars initiated more or less by the arabs. The first one was in 1948 known as the "Independance War", afterwards in 1956 "The Sinai War", in 1967 "the 6 Days War" and in 1973 "The Yom Kippur War". Every time Israel got out victorious. (quite to admire, though in war there is no such thing as real victory).
The "Sinai War" was a major military operation through the number of participants and through the consequences. The War is part of what is generally known as the Crisis of the Suez Channel. That consisted of an attack over Egipt by Great Britain, France and Israel starting October 29th, 1956. The attack came as a response to Egipt's decision to nationalize the Suez Channel, after refusing several offers from USA and Great Britain to finance the construction of the Awan Dam.
During the "6 Days War" from 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank from Jordania, great part of Golan Heights belonging to Syria, Gaza Strip from Egipt and Est-Jerusalim includin the Old Town. The status of the City as capital of Israel as well as the occupation of those territories remained cause of armed conflict in the region.
The "Yom Kippur War" was started by a coalition of arab states, formed of Egipt, Irak and Syria. In the end, this war had many implications for many nations. The Arab World that had been humiliated by the defeat of the Egipt-Syria-Jordania coalition during the "6 Days War", felt psichologicaly speaking avanged by the early victoried, despite the final outcome. This feeling of vindication, led to the beginning of a peace process.
The Camp David agreements that followed soon after, led to the normalization of relations between Egipt and Israel, being the first time in history when an arab state recognized the status of Israel. The Israelians saw this as a well considered de iure recognition, finally coming after many bloody battles. Many analysts consider that this was possible due to Egipt who was distancing itself from Russia, afterwards completely leaving its influence. I tend to disagree, as the aversion and the armed agression over Israel dominates the arab world, without having anything to do with Russian strategies or indoctrinations. I rather tend to consider that this recognition was possible due to Egipt's approach to the United States. As the implication of Egipt in this conflict resumed "only" to regaining some territories from the Israelians and to avange their defeat, for the moment Egipt had to reach this compromise. Ofcourse, that has been reached by the Government, without any posibility to prevent the population from expressing its dissapproval and any anti-Israelian feelings it might have had.
Many steps have been made towards a peace process, many attempts were realised as to reach an understanding, but all have failed. The most important actually came from the Arab Ligue, but though it was rejected by Israel, it is still taken into consideration.
The Western World thinks that the best solution would that of the creation of two independant states, Palestine and Israel, this way seizing fire. An Israelian once said that: "If the Arabs would lay down their weapons, there would be peace. If Israel would lay down the weapons, there will be no more Israel." In a half-medieval world, and entirely medieval in its mentality, agressions like those initiated by Israel could never be forgiven. Though the Palestinians, considering that they sufferend the hardest and biggest losses are opened to peace and convival, the rest of the Arab World does not share the same feelings any more.
2. Transnationalist perspective:
This theory regards the role of the state from a modern perspective. Those kind of theories consist of perceiving trade and any other relations between states as being influenced by actions of at least one other non-governmental player. Until recently, the transnationalist theory regarded only four big areas: communications, transportation, finances, travells.
I believe that under the given circumstances it can be succesfully applied, and laws can be created, perfectly valid for relations between states. I believe that all main areas of transnationalism can be translated to a conflict, but taking into consideration the theory of the relations among groups, without subjecting any of those areas to the laws of war.
a) International pluralism - the relations between different groups of interest:
The success that the Jewish cauze had before the UN and especially Great Britain and United States, was due to several well placed groups at the highest level of the leadership of those countries. In 1917, on the occasion of the Balfour Declaration, Great Britain was promissing to support the creation and protection of a home for Jewish people in Palestine. In 1918 a military act divided the former Turkish land in several occupied territories. Part of Egipt's border, including Sinai, Palestine and part of Lebanon came under British temporarily military administration. Great Britain was taking advantage of the international situation in order to create new colonies and to extend its controll over Syria, Lebanon and a few other provinces from the former Turkish Empire and especially in order to gain controll over the Sinai peninsula and Suez Channel. Palestine region was right in the middle of the other territories, therefore it was necessary to be used as a buffer. The only problem was that it was inhabited by arabs. When the Zionist movement was born, the perfect solution appeared. Jews had the necessary economic power to ensure the support of some Western countries for the establishment of their own state. Great Britain needed to provide a pretext in order to maintain the occupation of those territories and it also needed allies in the region. From here it came the unconditioned support for the Zionist movement and for the birth of the Israel state. All the democratical principles exposed decades before those actions did not matter. Such way, the interest of a state apparently with no interest in Palestine determined so dramatically the faith of the local population. The economic interests of a small group, independent from the local governments directly involved, determined the future actions and the course of a regional conflict.
b) Attitudes:
At the beginning of the Israelian migration in Palestine, the local people did not saw that as a threat. The anti-Jewish concept was not awake in the conscious of Arabs, the hate towards people from another religion acted sporadically, due to the convival for centuries of both Christians and Arabs. After all, not even at this point, the Arab World can not be considered anti-semite as it does not fully grasp the meaning of this concept. Arabs do not hate Jewish people from that race superiority that determined the anti-semitism in Europe, or believe that extinguishing them is a duty in order to maintain the purity of the race. The Arab World sees the fight against Jewish as a Holly duty, but born from the necessity to provide an answer to Israelian agression, as an obligation to restore their honor.
The intervention of some Western states to protect Israel as well as the support given in the occupation of arab territories, determined the change in their attitude. When the Americans were aware of the huge economic potential of Middle East territories they started immediately a series of actions in order to "bring democracy" in certain countries which were less stable and with a small defensive capability. The influence of various groups of interest, mainly economical, led to the maintenance of this conflict, as well as to its spreading - later many more countries from the region were involved, the biggest suppports for the United States coming from Israel and Great Britain. Those groups increased the pro-Israelian attitude in the United States. Acknowledging the various interests and their nature, the Arab World tried to form coalitions, but, though at governmental levels there were many failures, to what concerns the attitude of the population, this coalition was unanimously formed.
c) Restrictions from dependences:
The Palestinians depend at this point on the reaction and the support of the Arab World. To have at least a small chance in front of the Israelians, they have to preserve the anti-feelings of the Arabs towards the Americans and the Israelians, although considering the international context regarding the region and most of the Middle East, those kind of feelings are unlikely to calm down.
On the other hand, the most interesting interdependences are between USA and Israel. Israel needs the United States as its unique ally and the strongest who could provide military help when required. The United States need oil to maintain its consumption rate. In the same context, Israel, through business groups located in the USA is financing the actions of the United States and at to some extent even taking care to feed the need for those resources. The strongest example of economic groups behind military actions is the Rockeffeller empire.
d) Mutual influencing at governmental level:
The best example remains the relation between Israel and the USA when, from an overreaction to friendship, both states have maintained for a long period of time their statements according to which did not acknowledged the existance of Palestinians. Also in the same position is the relationship between Great Britain and the United States or Egipt-USA which determined the acceptance by Arafat of the existance of the Israel as a state.
e) Autonomous actors with their own foreign politics:
A major part of this conflict would have not taken place, would have not escalated or even better, would have been finished at this moment, if independant actors with their own ambitions, interests and ideas of foreign policy. Best examples are: the interferrance of Great Britain through the Ligue of Nations, considering that its commercial interest in the area and in other regions of the world had been put ahead of any principles of self-governance and right to independance that had been previously supported. Another example consists of the economic groups within the United States that have as unique goal the obtaining of oil resources from the area, no matter the price paid in human lives.
3. Predictions:
A series of predictions were made regarding the future development of this conflict as well as regarding its end. Many have failed completely, others, very few in numbers have managed to guess to a certain extent, if not the course of the events but a part of the causes that later led to those events.I believe that all the solutions that were pointed out are superficial in the sense that they do not follow the real aspects of this conflict. Event if all the options taken into consideration let say just in the past two years, are perceived many of them as offering ”real” solutions to this conflict, they treat it only localy, at most regionally in the circumstances of the involvment of Syria, Egipt, Lebannon and some other arab states with direct interest at a certain point. In order to reach an applicable solution for any conflict, the right thing to do is to treat the causes. The question that arises for any conflict, and especially for those from the Middle East is Cui prodest? (Who does it serve to?). The ignition of the conflict served the purposes of Great Britain and it would have not begun it Great Britain would have not found suitable to support at that time the migration of all Jews towards that territory. The Zionist movement had in mind also other territories and perhaps it would have chosen others if it would have not found substantially aid in electing Palestine as the territory of the future state, and of course that this choice also had a very good justification in the eyes of the world by the promisse from the Bible. At that specific moment the starting of the conflict served Great Britain's interests. The present question is who does it serve its maintenance?
iAs pointed above, the relations between Israel and the USA did not appeared from a feeling of unseen friendship but from well placed economic interests. As long as there will be interests in the region, there will be also conflicts to be ignated and preserved, in order to justify the necessity for a military presance in the area, under the pretext of "economic reconstruction of one or another of the sides - usually of the one that had more to loose in the end". The Palestinian-Israelian conflict is no exception, especially when it is empowered by the need for a reliable partner in the area who would not belong to the Arab World, namely Israel, of course, that need coming from the need of obtaining certain resources from the region. Perhaps there will be some concessions that will be made during this year, in order to calm down the increasing worries of the public opinion regarding the end of the conflict. All this considered, the war will not end as long as it will be treated local. If included in a bigger problem, as for example the one that deals with the coalization of the Arab World against the USA, perhaps it will find itself an end, but not a solution!
