Intractability and Contested Identity Issues: The Zionist Perspectives of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Abstract
The Israel-Palestine conflict has
been largely viewed and interpreted as having to do with land possession
between the Jewish and Arab population. But underlying the land conflict is a
search for national identity and self-determination that surpasses the economic
and other forms of value attributable to land. This is a yearning that goes
beyond the question on whose land it is to that of the meaning of land to a
particular community – in this case – the Jewish community. This is a conflict that
depicts, on the one hand, a clash between a colonial settler community and an
indigenous population prevalent in many parts of the world across generations,
and on the other, deeply contested identity issues between Jews and
Palestinians.
This chapter revisits the contested
history (Caplan, 2011) that has characterized the hundred
years of war between Israel and Palestine (Gelvin,
2014). In this contestation both Jews and Palestinians appear to
have ‘good reasons’ to claim the land as their own based on long-term textual,
archaeological, and hermeneutical pieces of evidence (Thompson, 2007). This chapter is a critical gaze into the underlying causes
of the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict. A revisiting of
historical development of the conflict, at least, from the perspective of Zionism
is a contribution, in a unique way, to the understanding of the conflict and
its place in the global peace landscape.
This chapter focuses mainly on the
entry of Jews into the disputed territory, the notions of political Zionism as
a thoroughgoing aspiration for an Israeli polity and its connections to land
and underlying – almost irreconcilable – contested identity issues. In
revisiting the said history and providing Zionist perspectives of the conflict,
this analysis navigates within a marred trajectory of competing claims of
territorial autochthony and indigeneity between the Jews and the Palestinians
over the disputed land. This is a historical perspective of a seemingly
never-ending struggle between two nationalisms over the same space in a manner
that is, in many ways, zero-sum. A struggle that has, in a number of occasions
and for various reasons, embroiled outside powers and shaped a global narrative
on peace; one that is at once historical and quintessential to contemporary
discourse on the history of peace.
Introduction
In the 19th century the land of Palestine was
inhabited by a multicultural population – approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10
percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish and all were coexisting harmoniously (DellaPergola, 2003).
It is in the late 1800s that a group viewed as an ‘extremist minority’ of the
Jewish population in Europe (Zionists) decided to colonize this land (Mulhall,
1995). Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered
locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine. The
struggle over ownership and control of the said land has been the hallmark of
the conflict.
Underlying the land dispute are identity issues characterized
by Zionists’ desire to create a Jewish nation-state, not in any other place but
on the contested territory. To be more exact, the
land conflict is over a “search for national identity and self-determination”
as explained by Gerner (1994:44). It also depicts a “clash between a colonial
settler community and an indigenous population” (Gerner, 1994:44). The
contested territory covers a small area of 12,000 square miles and hosts
various groups. However, these various groups have usually been reduced to the “rough
dichotomy of Jews and Palestinians” (DellaPergola, 2003:3).
The conclusion that anti-Jewish
sentiments were unlikely to disappear, in Europe and Russia, and the belief
that Jewish people can never completely assimilate in a non-Jewish society,
motivated them to leave (Zeltzer-Zubida
& Zubida, 2012; DellaPergola, 2003). Many of them left for the United States while a smaller
group decided to move to their biblical homeland, Palestine. Within this period
the pact between Zionist leaders and Hitler's Third Reich that
was concluded in 1933, led to the transfer of 55,000 Jews and $100 million to
Palestine on the condition that Zionist organizations call a halt to their
economic boycott of Nazi Germany (Black, 2001).
At these early stages of migration
and take over by Jews of the disputed territory the complexity of the conflict
was glaring as various atrocities were witnessed. Benvenisti (2000) argues that Israeli
leadership destroyed Palestinian villages, and moved new immigrants into the
buildings they left standing, changed Arabic names for places into Hebrew, and
Muslim holy sites into Jewish holy sites.
During the first decades of the 20th
century the migration to Palestine remained limited. However, both World Wars,
especially the Second World War led to a massive influx of Jews from Central
Europe. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to
sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries led to increased
Jewish immigration to Palestine that led to exacerbation of the conflict there
(Block et al., 1992).
From a series of interviews with Europeans who hid Jews
during WWII, Block et al (1992) paint a picture of the actual events during the
Holocaust with no spin on feelings of bitterness or personal politics. Some of
the views contain strong pro-Zionist sentiments and others touch on the
incomprehensibility of why the Israelis persecuted the Palestinians, given the
history of anti-Semitism. Underlying this is the rise of Zionism both as a
genuine attempt at preservation of a nation facing the threat of annihilation
and as a nationalistic ideology aimed at journeying back to Palestine to create
the Jewish nation. The latter, being driven by the politics of identity that
seeks to entirely Judaize Israel/Palestine (Yiftachel, 2006), is not
devoid of political propaganda, however, the emotional appeal of the former
overshadows the Zionist politics. In the
following section this paper presents a synopsis of the conflict that brings
with it a historical contextualization of the Israel-Palestine conflict which
plays a crucial role in understanding the current situation and prospects for
peace.
A
Synopsis of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The historical anti-Semitism – which
must be denounced in all its forms – somehow offered a platform for Zionists to
craft a deliberate narrative that the plight of the wretched survivors of
Hitlerism should be a ‘moral argument’ which the world had to accept (Hadawi, 1991:37).
Zionists fiercely propagated narrative and the urgency with which it was
necessary to save a race under threat meant that the world, especially the
West, had to accept and unconditionally offer support to Israel, for instance,
through America’s passionate attachment (Ball & Douglas, 1992). This happened without a careful scrutiny of any
object of Zionism that went beyond the struggle against anti-Semitism and the
survival of the Jews (Dean, 2004). It
is only much later that the discovery of a complex political agenda that has
always permeated the extreme nationalistic ideology of radical Zionism (Avishai,1985)
was
discovered. Perhaps a case of too little
too late as the conflict had already escalated to alarming levels. Perhaps the
interested parties could have called for repealing of certain negative actions
and intents by Zionists, including and not limited to resisting forceful dispossession of Palestinians of their land (Halper, 2008), which remains
the major conflict underlying factor to date (Benvenisti, 2000),
only
if the extreme nationalistic agenda of Zionism was detected at an early stage.
Another very disturbing factor during the time of Jewish
immigration to Palestine is the collaboration of prominent Zionists with
Fascist leaders in Europe and the callousness of some of these same leaders
toward the European Jews during the Holocaust (Brenner, 1983:405).
This goes to tell that indeed like any form of nationalism, Zionism has always
been victim to the tendency to make people cruel or indifferent to the
suffering of others not of their nationality (Brenner,1983:405). On these grounds the pain and suffering
inflicted on Palestinians never mattered to a Zionist in as far as such remained
a means towards establishment of a Jewish nation in the contested land.
From the conflict resolution perspective, there is a general
agreement that it is easier to terminate conflict at its formative stages than
it is after it takes root (Bercovitch, Diehl & Goertz, 1997:753). Against
the backdrop of collaborative antiracist struggle
(Patil, 2014) coupled with the urgency to
protect the Jewish identity at a time when anti-Semitism existentially threatened
to annihilate a nation, many actors did not seem to be bothered about conflict
analysis. But, today through the lens of self-history and purpose produced by
ethnic studies, it is possible to look back and critically analyze the processes
of racialization (Patil, 2014: 361) in
the context of Zionism and how it successfully
elided being identified as a conflict causing factor during conflict formation.
The resultant is the intractability that has left many conflict experts
perturbed.
Departing from Patil’s
(2014) submissions on the hyper-visibility
of racialization at the level of distinct groups and the invisibility of
cross-group processes emerges a ‘group effect’ which has significant
implications for alliance-building and solidarity. On this entreaty there was
founded and nurtured a worldwide movement of Zionism whose object cannot be
said to be entirely pure. Hence the conflict formation had complex
enthnopolitical tinges that have complicated it over time. The
multi-dimensional task to terminate conflicts such as these, as suggested by
Miall (2004) required that proper analysis be conducted from the start,
something that never happened. The best that would have been is to nip it at
the bud. This should have been done in or about 1939, the year that saw a huge
influx of Jews to Palestine.
By
1938, Gerner (1994:27) reports, “the region was in complete turmoil, with
Zionist, Palestinian, and British forces fighting for control.” Towards the end
of 1939, Jews had almost doubled their population share in Palestine (from 17
percent in 1931 to 31 percent in 1939). The mass influx of Jews and the
subsequent increased competition for land contributed to the Arab revolt of
1936-1939 (Rubin, 1956). The fighting has
been viewed, by some pundits, as a revolt against judaization of Palestine (Yiftachel,
(1999:369). Palestinians protested against the Jewish
aspiration to create a state on their territory through active non-violence and
later on through violent means, perhaps because the environment they were
operating in proved to be too hostile for them to succeed nonviolently (Muste, 1940).
The
violent conflict ended with a tremendous loss for Palestine: part of the
Palestinian leadership was imprisoned and another sent to exile, the population
was demoralized thus ending the revolt (Yiftachel,
1999 & Aronson, 1987). Beit-Hallahmi’s (1992) ‘original sin’ goes this far back. Contextualization of Hallahmi’s (1992) argument is an
implicit search for the conflict causing issues, otherwise referred to as
factors underlying conflict or conflict root causes. The search for peace today
cannot succeed without recourse to this history because therein lie the issues
that need genuine disposition to dialogue in a search either for conflict
resolution (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011) or conflict
transformation (Lederach, 1995) depending on the school of thought that one may wish
to subscribe to.
Pervading the processes of migration
and occupation of the contested land, as well as the war that ensued, are
notions of Palestinian dispossession and ruination (Pappe, 2007). The formation
of Hagana – the front runner of the Israeli army – is the buildup of Jewish
formation spearheaded by political Zionism culminating in the so called
Palestinian catastrophe of 1947-48. Hagana is a manifestation of the
ideological goals of the political movers of Zionism.
Israel was to declare independence
in 1948. This ‘war of independence’ is the normative Israeli, and more broadly
diasporic Jewish paradigm by which the events of 1948 have been understood, and
made mythic. Mythology characterizes Zionism in many ways and it so appears
that it is in such myths that Zionism thrives hence leading to shrouding of the
history in numerous myths both of the origin of Jews as a nation but also
around the wars fought in the name of liberation. Part of the efforts to
resolve the conflict should therefore focus on demythologizing a host of issues
regarding the conflict (Davis, 1985).
The Jewish myths, as propagated by
Zionists, constitute what Pappe (2007) refers to as ‘heroic struggle’ of the
few against the many; of Occident against Orient; and, more pointedly still, of
a Jewish nations’ reasserting itself in the post-Holocaust, so that the remnant
of the catastrophe might survive and prosper. This goes to show that the
“eructation of Palestinians from their native hearth was no tragic accident
arising out of the contingent circumstances of ‘war’ but was, on the contrary,
at the very center of Ben-Gurion’s game plan” (Pappe, 2007:2). It was firmly embedded
within the logic of Zionism itself, in effect amounting to a long-term
intentionalism geared towards the removal of Palestine’s indigenous people to
make way for a demographically homogeneous population of recent Jewish
arrivals.
The
ten-decade long (1938-1949) turmoil is therefore better understood within this
filament; a push for an establishment of a virgin Jewish nation in Palestine on
the one hand, and an opposition to the same on the other. This did not happen
without bloodshed that sow the seed of bitterness and enduring enmity between
Jews and Palestinians.
Between
1937 and 1948 Britain attempted to reconcile the Jews and Arabs of Palestine.
However, Britain failed to reach an agreement between the two conflicting
parties and hence turned its responsibility to the newly created United
Nations. The British were requested to leave Palestine and the two states “plus
a Corpus Separatum compromising the
Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas” (Gerner, 1994:43) were to be established by 1
July 1948. The planned partition of the country clearly favored the Jewish
population. The Jews were given 57 percent of Palestine although at that time
Jews constituted only about one third of the population owning less than 10
percent of the land. This can partly be explained by the risen sympathy for the
Jews after the Holocaust (Dean, 2004.)
The UN
formed a special committee on Palestine which worked out two proposals on how
to end the conflict. The first proposal suggested the establishment of two separate
political entities in Palestine which remain economically joined. The second
proposal included the creation of a “single federal state containing autonomous
Jewish and Palestinian areas” (Gerner, 1994:42).
While
Zionists agreed to the first proposal, Palestinians rejected both as they would
mean to give up part of their sovereignty. As a response to this, the Arab
Higher Committee and the Arab league drafted their own proposal which called
for “a single, unified state in Palestine that would be democratic and secular
with equal rights for all its citizens” (Gerner, 1994:42). This proposal has
been rejected by Zionists as it considers only Jewish people who have arrived
in Palestine before 1917 as citizens. On the 29 November 1947 the UN General Assembly
voted in favor of UN Resolution 181 which affirmed the creation of an
independent Jewish state and Arab state within Palestine, one that has not only
remained controversial and disputed (Morris,
2009) but also part of the problem
according to DellaPergola (2003).
The well-organized and well-equipped Zionist
military force used the turmoil which took place between November 1947 and May
1948 to expand their territory beyond the areas specified by UN Resolution 181.
They took over areas which they deemed important for their “security and
economic success of the still-to-be declared State of Israel” (Gerner, 1994:43).
The State of Israel was proclaimed by David Ben Gurion on May 24, 1948. The
Arabs in Palestine did not follow his example and chose not to declare the
independence of the Arab state. This can be understood if one considers the
areas the Arabs were left with after Israel expanded its territory.
DellaPergola (2003:5) states that “the putative Arab
state, in turn, was now dismembered into three portions: The Gaza Strip, under
Egyptian occupation; the West Bank, under Jordanian occupation; and the rest,
as noted, incorporated by Israel.” In addition, DellaPergola (2003:5) states
that what happened between 1947 and 1949 is “the real bone of contention” and
“not the outcome of the Six Day War in June 1967.” During the Six Day War
Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Until
today Israel and Palestine have been trapped in a conflict cycle.
Palestinians started inhabiting Gaza in 1948 after
they had been expelled from their land by new founded state of Israel. Until
Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip in 1967, Gaza belonged to Egypt. It had a
flourishing economy trading in fish, fruits and vegetables. However, after the
occupation Israel imposed export restrictions on Gaza and diverted its water to
Israeli settlers. These economic policies reduced Gaza’s GDP to a fraction
compared to what it was before the occupation. The experience of economic
hardship of Gaza is linked to the Palestinian uprising or
intifada in December 1987 (Aronson, 1987) and the emergence of Hamas (Marshall, 2012).
Hamas
started to fight for self-determination with violent means. Bombings, rocket
fires and terror attacks targeting Israel became more frequent in the 1900s leading to Israel’s offensive (Gaza-Israel
conflict, 2014, August 26). Since Hamas gained power in Gaza in 2007, the
conflict between Gaza and Israel “has turned into a cycle of periodic outbreaks
of violence and subsequent cease-fire agreements” (Marshall, 2012). Israel has carried
out four major attacks on Gaza between 2007 and today, these are Operation Hot
Winter (February 2008); Operation Cast Lead (December 2008-January 2009);
Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012); and Operation
Protective Edge (July-August 2014). The last military operation started on July
7 and ended with a cease-fire agreement on August 25 brokered by Egypt.
The level of
unproportionality between Israel and Hamas has been widely debated especially
within the theorization on the principles of just war. The difference, in
weaponry for example, does cause differential impacts. For instance, Marshall
(2012) reports that Hamas’s rockets hardly caused damage while Israel’s
bombardment devastated large areas of Gaza. The asymmetry is also reflected in
the number of casualties and destroyed infrastructures (Eshel, 2014). The large
number of civilian deaths seemed inevitable to Adas (2014) as “Israel used
battlefield weapons on densely populated neighborhoods” and “people had nowhere
to flee even if given prior notice.”
Israel claims to be
more secure than ever since it succeeded to kill three Hamas military leaders
and roughly 1,000 Hamas fighters, destroyed 32 attack tunnels and badly damaged
Hamas military infrastructure (Ceren, 2014). However, this claim has not gone
unquestioned, for instance, Marshall (2014) proposes exactly the opposite. He
states that “Israel did not emerge a victor but seems likely to be less secure
than ever” (Marshall, 2014). He believes that Gaza’s children have been deeply
traumatized and “are likely to grow into adults filled with anger and the
desire for revenge.” He therefore, predicts that if Israel does not alter its
policy it might “become trapped in permanent warfare” (Marshall, 2014).
There are conflicting
narratives on what triggered the conflict between the IDF and Hamas in the
summer of 2014. A typical Zionist narrative as contained in the official report
(State of Israel, 2015) is that “Hamas caused the violence by repeatedly firing
rockets into Israel.” Hence, Israel started Operation Protective Edge in Gaza “aiming
at destroying Hamas’s terror infrastructure” (State of Israel, 2015). On the
other hand, Marino (2014) explains that the kidnapping of three Israeli
teenagers in the West Bank (for which a Hamas leader later claimed
responsibility) led Israel to imprison hundreds of Palestinians which in turn
provoked Hamas to fire rockets into Israel. However, Adas (2014) argues that
the cause of the latest assault has little to do with the kidnapping, the
firing of rockets and the imprisonment. In his view, these are just
manifestations of a deeper issue, which he claims is the fact that Palestinians
no longer accept Israeli’s siege on Gaza (Adas, 2014).
A relook at history from the Zionist
perspective is invaluable since indeed as Chertok (1998) argues, accounts
of the factors underlying conflict, especially those that touch on and are
recounted by the affected, are
useful for understanding the Israel-Palestine conflict. For purposes of a
discourse on peace, perspectives of those entangled in the conflict and those whose
lives are affected by the same conflict in one way or another, are certainly
helpful in striking a provocation that enables any observer to think in terms
of people instead of politics. This is especially true at a time when politicization
of the Israel-Palestine conflict has made it look like a mere political contest
that it is not.
Underneath such seeming political contestations are untold
narratives of human suffering that craves for peace (Israel-Palestine Timeline, n.d.). Hence, unlike Haim’s (1998) and many other pundits’ work, this chapter
does not in any way seek to compete ideas between the belief or lack thereof in
Zionists’ bankruptcy or as an ideology that is either dying or should die on
the one hand, and a leftists’ support, at least theoretically, of the notions
of human rights for Palestinians on the other. It is rather, an objective
analysis of the conduct and posture of Zionism and what it portends for the
peace process.
Zionism
and Palestinian Nationalism
As opposed to constructs such as
those of nostalgic appreciation, collective memory, common tragedy and shared
feelings about and sentimental attachment of a people to places, nationalistic
attachment to land is more powerful and appeals to identity. When land is
elevated to the level of what it means to be, then groups claiming such a land
often times are seen as willing to claim it, fight for it and if necessary die
in defense of their land. For without it; they are not a people. This is how
powerful the nationalistic approach to land can be. Nationalism transforms
territorial claims into a necessity without which, a group is nothing. To make
it a little more complicated, nationalism converts sentiment into politics (Gelvin, 2014:6).
The struggle to control the disputed
land between Palestine and Israel is a clash of competing nationalisms creating
two distinct and apparently irreconcilable movements. However, though different
the two nationalisms exhibit remarkable similarities. Each of them has, over
time, successfully constructed and propagated a historical narrative that
traces unbroken lineage of a nation and each endows the site of the nation’s
birth or greatest cultural or political moment with special meaning (Christison, 1987:110). Each uses its purported inseparable affinity to some
territory to justify its right and/or claim to establish a sovereign
nation-state in that territory (Gelvin,
2014:5). Adherents of nationalistic
movements, mobilized around this claim and charged by real or perceived threat
by the ‘national other’ to prevent them from realizing the dream of creating a
sovereign state find reason to fight for the land they think is rightfully
theirs. With this understanding, it becomes difficult to refute Gelvin’s (2014:6) claim that “when it comes to connecting history and
geography to political rights, neither Zionism nor Palestinian nationalism is a
slacker.”
In the discourse on the history of
world peace, it is important to invoke deliberative consciousness on the fact
that nationalistic narratives, such as those underlying Zionism and Palestinian
nationalism, present a skewed, obviously tilted and largely incomplete
executions of history (Bright, 2000). Therefore, even as this lines
present a Zionist perspective of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict,
such a narrative cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be thought of as being
entirely unproblematic. It only helps the current peace actors to create an
imagination that juxtaposes the past with the present for purposes of
ascertaining what has been achieved or lost in the search for peace among and
between Jews and Palestinians. This also helps peacemakers to have realistic aspirations
on what is achievable under prevailing circumstances.
The complexities that underpin these
skewed and incomplete histories held by both nationalisms erode their
usefulness. Two of such factors can be pointed out. First, like any nationalist
movement, both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism assume that nations – such
as the ones whose genealogy they assert – have existed throughout history (Whitelam, 2013). Hence, they distinguish themselves as carriers of
consciousness raising (Marshall, 2006:231
& Almog, 1987).
In other words, they do not appear as creating anything new but as agents of
raising the awareness of the people about what has always existed, how it was,
it is and / or should be. In this regard, the Zionist narrative, just as its Palestinian
counterpart, lays emphasis on the claim to be agents that create a state of
self-awareness. On this basis therefore, Zionists argue that Jews always
belonged to a territory in Palestine and search for whatever available
evidence, both biblical and archaeological to support this narrative (Gelvin, 2014 & Newman, 2001). In the process, selective reading of
history and if necessary ‘amendment’ of history happens. This is one of the
complications of nationalistic narratives.
The second, is that nationalistic
movements have a tendency to obscure and / or ignore the similarities between
the nations whose history they claim to relate and other nations. This, of
course, is done deliberately, by making it appear that the nations they
propagate for are distinctive, and ones that have a right to self-rule and
sovereignty over a designated piece of real estate (Gelvin, 2014:14).
In the case of Zionism, this includes invocation of the name of God
(YHWH-Yahweh) who gave them the land and ordained that they, not only be a
nation but that their nationhood depends on a specific piece of the earth.
Obviously, a claim that invokes deity as the originator of what is, contributes
to the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict making it one of the
most protracted conflicts in the history of nations and humanity.
The history of peace in the middle
east and in view of Zionists as important protagonists in the Israel-Palestine
conflict should be seen in the light of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism as
movements cast in the same mold. “While Zionism and the advent of a distinct
Palestinian nationalism were never forgone conclusions, there can be no doubt
that in a world in which nation-states provide the model for organizing
political communities, Jews and the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine would
claim to belong to some nation – either their own or someone else’s – and
espouse some nationalistic creed” (Gelvin,
2014:14). Perhaps as we revisit this history, some of
the questions to ponder on should revolve around the viability of nation-state
as the modern-day model for organizing political communities. How do the
construct, nation-state augment claims for autochthony and indigeneity as key
factors that determine the localization of a people in a certain space? How
does the idea of possession of a real estate interact with cultural and
religious beliefs to justify the claim by a community to establish a
nation-state in very specific locations? Is establishment of two distinct
nations a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and how is it even
possible?
Zionism
Political Zionism, that is Jewish
nationalism, has become one of the hallmarks of the Jewish identity and their
quest for an Israeli polity in a territory they claim and are emotionally
attached to as a homeland. Zionism is traceable to the writings of a Jewish
author and journalist named Theodor Herzl at the end of the 19th century.
He proclaimed that the Jewish people are ‘one people’ and henceforth have a
right to an own state. During the first Zionist congress in Basel, Switzerland
in 1897 delegates concluded the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine,
which coincides with the Biblical land of Zion. The aspiration is contained in
the statement: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in
EretzIsrael secured under public law” (Mendelsson, 2003:1).
Zionism emerged in the late 19th
century both as a reaction to European anti-Semitism and to various nationalist
movements that excluded Jews from political communities in the process of
formation (Gelvin, 2014:15). Notwithstanding the detours along
the way, Zionism has since emerged as a nationalistic movement that has
distinguished itself as the political manifestation of the Jewish nation, and perhaps,
as a realization and a fulfilment, in part, of the Jewish history. There are
three relatively distinct schools of Zionism; political, labor and cultural.
However, identifiable in Zionism is an ‘ideological consensus’ within which
most, if not the full gamut of Zionist thinking unfolds. One element of this
consensus is the claim that Palestine should one day contain a Jewish majority.
Within this consensus coexist all the three variations of Zionism but most
importantly, it is this consensus that has proved to be the principle obstacle
to any reconciliation with the Arabs (Gelvin,
2014:5-6).
In a manner analogous with other
nationalisms, “Zionism has constructed a three-part narrative that traces the
unbroken history of the Jewish nation from its birth and efflorescence in
Palestine through a period of decay and degeneration in exile to a period of
redemption at the hands of the modern Zionist movement and its return to its
ancestral home in Palestine” (Gelvin, 2014:6). The Jewish claim for the
territory in Palestine, as their land, is traceable to biblical narratives collaborated
with archaeological evidence (Thompson, 2007
& Gilmour et al.,
1985:181-195). This
history is hinged on Abraham and his descendants, who migrated to Palestine in
the in the second millennia, possibly from a region that is home to current
Iraq (Thompson, 2007; Dever, 2003 & Bright, 2000). The 10th century BC
reigns of Kings David and Solomon as high points of the Jewish presence in
Palestine (Gelvin, 2014).
Tragically, the glorious moment of
Zionism exemplified by the great Kings only lasted a short while – about 70
years – and was to be followed by many years of turmoil for the Jewish people.
The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and scattering of the Jews from the
city meant disruption of the central cultic site which was the glue of the
Jewish unity. The Jews were scattered and Jewish life shifted to the diaspora.
The diaspora was to remain the central site of Jewish life until the emergence
of the Zionist movement. Zionists have since created, spread and sustained a
narrative – and successfully so – that
Zionism saved the scattered Jewish nation from decay from within and corruption
from without and redeemed it by restoring it to rightful home in Palestine (Gelvin, 2014; Ravitzky, 1996 & Almog, 1987).
The narrative of the Jewish people,
as recounted by Zionists, situates periods of Jewish exile from Palestine (such
as Egypt and Babylon), dispersion (such as by Assyrians), political division
(such as a split into Israel and Judea), and wars with other inhabitants of the
land (such as with the Philistines) within a framework that gives pride of
place to ancient periods of political unity and dominance within Palestine. Of
course, this is a narrative that both elicits anger from Palestinians and
criticism from a section of pundits. For example, commenting on the matter, Gelvin (2014:7)
argues that “what Zionists did, as all nationalist movements, was to read their
history selectively and draw conclusions from it that would not have been understandable
to their ancestors before the advent of the modern era.” This reminds one of
Ernest Renan’s famous quote that “getting history wrong is part of being a
nation” (Gelvin, 2014:7). Indeed, many other
nationalistic movements, from around the world, have shown similar tendencies. Whereas,
this cannot be said to be a uniquely Zionist attribute, analysis of the same
goes to help in the comprehension of the role that such conviction and tendency
play in contributing to the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Implications of Zionist Perspective on the Conflict
The Zionist approach remains one of the complicating factors
– in most instances if not all, a conflict escalating one – since in the
considerations of Benvenisti (2000) the Zionist
struggle for the land is largely a struggle for ‘profitable zoning.’
Benvenisti’s (2000)
hypothesis on failure to resolve the Israel-Palestine
conflict is, from the very onset, pegged on the impracticality of creative
alternatives to the conflict due to the ‘all or nothing’ attitudes that have
remained a constant throughout the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Benvenisti
(2000)
notes that if the Israeli government were to provide infrastructure to the
‘unrecognized villages’ where Israeli Arab citizens were driven during the 1948
war, give building permits to these citizens, allow restoration of Arab mosques
and churches in communities where Jewish immigrants were settled, and
compensate Arab owners of land currently being sold by the State to developers,
it would set a ‘precedent for good intentions’ and signal that the state of war
with the Palestinians is finally over. Unfortunately, suggestions such as these
have never been considered an alternative to Zionists given their ‘all or
nothing stance’ traceable to the very conception of the idea of creation of
unadulterated Jewish nation in Palestine (Caplan, 2011).
The protracted nature and
intractability of the conflict certainly makes it hard to resolve (Caplan, 2011). It would be important to look into how the Zionist stand
has contributed to intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict (Nets-Zehngut & Bar-Tal, 2007:3-13). The claim over land based on a zero-sum
approach that essentially defies all efforts to resolve the conflict. This
hardline position has over the last century suffocated any possibility for
compromise that is to be found in numerous suggestions made by peace and conflict
experts (Atran et al., 2007:1039.). The Zionist response to virtually all peace processes have
left the peace actors, in many respects, at the very same spot that they
started. The most perturbing questions to many conflict experts would be; on
the one hand, the possibility of resolving a conflict with these perspectives
and, on the other; whether or not the Zionist demands are: first, probable and,
second, how they can lead to peace if they were to be granted.
Historically, the complexity of the Zionist perspectives to
the peace of Israel-Palestine has been extensively written about and commented
on. But, as a former member of the Irgun, Avnery (1986), who became one of Israel’s most famous
peace activists and a member of the Knesset, has made a reflection on this
matter over the course of a decade pretty fascinating. Of particular
significance is how he (Avnery,1986) examines and presents the development of
this matter behind the scenes with a depiction of how “Israel never missed an
opportunity to miss an opportunity” in making peace. Underlying this ironical
assertion is the conspiracies around which the search for peace is deliberately
frustrated on the side of Israel led by a Zionist nationalistic tendency that
sees no option but an uncompromised creation of a Jewish state in Palestine
(Gelvin, 2014).
A careful analysis of the Israel-Palestine peace process
reveals how the cards have been stacked against the Palestinians in most
negotiating situations (Ashrawi, 1996).
As talks take uneven curves punctuated by occasional dangerous turns, the
contours have in many ways revealed an Israel that is not keen in creating
peace because peace comes at a cost that may require compromise which a Zionist
philosophy cannot stand. Once the Palestinian negotiating team consisted of
non-politicians whose main emphasis was human rights but that is no longer the
case (Ashrawi, 1996). It shows that Zionists have ensured that even
the very basic – human rights – has been denied of Palestinians. This is
problematic in many ways, with the most important being the danger of not
seeing that truth for Palestinians is more important than some ‘honor/shame’
code (Ashrawi, 1996).
In ‘Bitter Harvest,’ Sami Hadawi (1991:37) argues that “one of the most
massively important features of the entire Palestine struggle was that Zionism
deliberately arranged that the plight of the wretched survivors of Hitlerism
should be a ‘moral argument’ which the West had to accept. Sami Hadawi (1991:35-39) foes on to discuss the use of manipulated, sometimes
invented, anti-Semitism in promoting Zionism, for example as seen Ian Gilmour (1985:184)
who argues that ‘in the Arab countries, Jewish difficulties and emigration to
Israel were the result not of anti-Semitism but of Zionist activities and the
existence of the state of Israel.” It is partly, therefore, the case that the
Zionist activities, in the words of Naeim Giladi (1998), pushed Jews to move to
the territory that is currently occupied by Israel.
Zionists used many ways including
trickery and even coercion to have Jews from around the world, especially
Europe move, en-masse, to Palestine in a bid to go and establish a Jewish
nation there. As result, not only Palestinians suffered but also many Jews. To
demonstrate how Jews themselves were victims of Zionism, Giladi, Naeim (2003) wrote
a book in which he asserted that: “I write this book to tell the American people, and
especially the American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate
willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that,
to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions
rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.” Similar
sentiments have been echoed elsewhere. For instance, Edwin Black (2001) argues
that “in many places Zionists manipulated local Jewish populations into going
to Palestine/Israel, in some cases using subterfuge and terrorism.” These lines
of thought are to be found in the writings of Hannah Arendt’s (1963)
‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ as
recounted by Seyla Benhabib (1996) and most subtly in
other authors like Lenni
Brenner (2002) who elaborates on the Zionist
Collaboration with the Nazis which as well saw a number of Jews become victims
the machinations of political Zionism. If this filament of
thought is anything to go by then it serves to demonstrate that majority of the
Jews are in Palestine and indeed entangled in the Israel-Palestine conflict,
not at will but as victims of Zionism nationalistic ideologies which has in
numerous occasions deliberated elided possibilities for peace at will
(Podeh, 2014).
Quoting
from the Ball and
Douglas’ (1992) ‘Passionate Attachment’, Norman Finkelstein, (2003:29) publishes a message from
future prime minister Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun Zionist terrorist
group, commending them on the grisly massacre of women, children, and old men
at the village of Deir Yassin. Begin is reported to have said; “tell the
soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest.
Continue thus until victory. As in Deir
Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou
has chosen us for conquest.”
The political wing of Zionism, in
its extreme form, has never shied away from the use of violence as a strategy
to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine. However, the use of violence has in
many ways been portrayed as Israel’s ‘inevitable’ means for sheer existence.
This is touched on in: John Whitbeck (2007) when he posts that: “what ‘Israel’s
right to exist’ means to Palestinians…it means a huge cost; it costs lives.” It
so appears that many actors are neither interested nor unwilling to ask
questions that are a little bit harder. For example; whether or not the use of
violence is justifiable on grounds that Israel only turns violent during times
of existential threat or that Israel has continued to use the same Zionistic ideology,
that is not devoid of violence, to further its inherent desire to create a purely
Jewish state in Palestine? And if the latter is the case; how does it undermine
the search for peace in the region?
Prospects
for Peace
While
the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas helped to create some sort of
‘negative peace’ (Grewal, 2003), another outbreak of violence might erupt any time.
For instance, during the last months Hamas carried out some sporadic attacks on
Israeli civilians and it threatened to start a new fight if Israel does not
stick to its promises. The reconstruction of Gaza has been halted by Israel’s
reluctance to open the borders which can be explained by its mistrust that
materials will be used for military purposes. These kinds of perceptions ad
suspicions do not aid peace since they act more as dividers than they do as connectors
(Shirch, 2015).
As one of the ways forward, this paper suggests the reconstruction of trustful
relationships among the Israel and Palestinian populations. In line with this,
Gerner (1994) proposed a multitrack approach to the conflict. This approach
includes opportunities for informal interaction between the two groups in order
to mitigate prejudices and stereotypes and confidence-building measures which
have to facilitate trust and forgiveness. However, Gerner (1994) warns that not
all actors might be interested in peaceful coexistence especially in the
initial stage; therefore, security has to be guaranteed to Palestinians and
Israelis.
Other
scholars like Dubai and Cohen (2010) emphasize the importance of dealing with
the past even if the conflict is not yet resolved. They submit that Israeli and
Palestinians have different historical accounts on what led to the conflict. They
(Dubai & Cohen, 2010) further report that each side sees itself as an
exclusive victim and denies that the other side has also suffered. In agreement
with Ghasan Khatib this paper sees it difficult to achieve “a lasting peace
agreement without dealing with these contradicting narratives” (Dubai &
Cohen, 2010:235). For example, Pappé (2007:73) reports that “the continued denial
of the Nakbah in the peace process was the main explanation for the failure of
the Camp David summit, the consequence of which was the second uprising in the
occupied territories.” The Nakbah refers to the ethnic cleansing which took
place during what Israel termed wars of independence. Pappé (2007) reports that
during 1948 hundred of Palestinian villages were destroyed, hundred thousand
Palestinians were expelled, and several thousands were killed. Israel continues
to deny the perpetration of ethnic cleansing. According to Jamal (2000:41) the
honest confrontation of past abuses and eventually the acceptance of past
wrongs are based on the recognition of the humanity and legitimacy of the other
and lays a good ground for peace negotiations. To aid peace, both narratives
should be acknowledged and made legitimate in the eyes of the other (Dubai
& Cohen, 2010:247).
However,
in concurrency with Dubai and Cohen (2010) one would think that while such
efforts would contribute to the reduction of conflict it cannot substitute
official peace negotiations. The most promising official peace initiative according
to Podeh (2014) might be the Arab Peace Initiative (API) adopted by the 2002
Arab League Summit in Beirut. It repeated the UN recognized demands; of “full
Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied in June 1967, and Israel’s
acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its
capital” (Podeh, 2014:588). But in turn it offered the “return for the
establishment of normal relations between the Arab states and Israel in the
context of comprehensive peace” (Podeh, 2014:588). So far, Israel has not
accepted the terms of this proposal, however, it might constitute a good
foundation for further negotiations.
Lastly,
is the recognition of the fact that peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved
without the involvement of regional and international actors. The ambiguous
roles of the international community should be fixed since they cause an
ambivalence that has been problematic over time. On the one hand, they often
greatly contribute to the violence through the supply of arms and on the other,
they can play a crucial role in mediating the peace process. The ambivalent role
of the international community needs to be comprehensively addressed.
Within
these processes, a more aggressive and sustained
bottom-up approach reminiscent of the intensified negotiations in the late
1940s (Azoulay, 2014) by many Jewish and
Arab communities who cared for their country is necessary. Continuation of the
grassroots campaign for peace on shared lives will certainly be helpful in the
search for peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Conclusion
There are two conflict underlying
issues in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. First, is the disputed land
ownership which has led to a protracted military occupation and confiscation of
land by Israel, especially the West Bank, and control over Gaza. The
Palestinians’ opposition to what they see as oppression of the weak has been
characterized by crude means leading to intervals of violence over the last
century. Apart from the waves of overt conflict punctuated by instances of détente and intervals of interventions aimed at attempting to resolve the conflict,
both protagonists continuously engage in clandestine attacks that have caused
numerous deaths, destruction and unending human suffering. Second, is the
inevitably destabilizing effect of trying to create and maintain a state based
on contested nationalist ideology, Zionism. These two conflict underlying
issues are compounded by a thoroughgoing Jewish ‘ethonocracy’ that seeks to
Zionize the territory and create a Jewish nation-state, a concept fiercely
opposed by the Palestinians. This has led to 100 years of a contest between a
quest for and an opposition to ‘judaization’ of the territory between Jews and
Palestinians (Yiftachel, 1999: 367-70).
According to the Oslo peace accords
of 1993, these territories were supposed to finally become a Palestinian state.
However, after years of Israel’s continued confiscation of land and
Palestinians opposition and rebellion, the conflict situation has been
escalating steadily over time. Any search for peace in the Israel-Palestine
conflict should find its point of departure from these conflict underlying
issues for indeed finding an acceptable agreement to both the Jews and
Palestinians on the two conflict underlying issues will unlock the stalemate
and play as a platform upon which peace will be incubated and nurtured. An
understanding that political Zionism – as any nationalistic ideology – is not
necessarily unproblematic in its entirety would help, at least in part, in
addressing the conflict.
Bibliography
Adas, J. (2014). Two-State Solution Is History, Says Israeli
Activist Jeff Halper. The
Washington
Report on Middle East Affairs, 33(6),
50.
Almog, S. (1987). Zionism and History the Rise of a New
Jewish Consciousness.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann
in jerusalem. Penguin.
Aronson, G. (1987). Creating
Facts: Israel, Palestinians, and the West Bank (Vol. 1257).
Institute for Palestine studies.
Ashrawi, H. (1996). This
side of peace: A personal account. Simon and Schuster.
Atran, S., Axelrod, R., & Davis, R. (2007). Sacred
barriers to conflict resolution. Science-New
York then Washington-,317(5841), 1039.
Avishai, B. (1985). The
tragedy of Zionism: revolution and democracy in the land of Israel.
Farrar Straus Giroux.
Avnery, U. (1986). My
friend, the enemy. Zed Books.
Ball, G. W., & Ball, D. B. (1992). The passionate attachment:
America's involvement with
Israel, 1947 to the present. New York: WW Norton.
Beit-Hallahmi,
B. (1992). Original sins:
Reflections on the history of Zionism and Israel. UK:
Pluto
Press.
Benvenisti,
M. (2000). Sacred landscape:
The buried history of the Holy Land since 1948.
University
of California Press.
Bercovitch, J., Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (1997). The
management and termination of protracted
interstate conflicts: Conceptual and empirical
considerations. Millennium-Journal
of
International Studies, 26(3),
751-769.
Black, E. (2001). The
transfer agreement: the dramatic story of the pact between the Third Reich
and Jewish Palestine. Basic Books.
Block, G., Drucker, M., Ozick, C., & Schulweis, H. M.
(1992). Rescuers: Portraits of moral
courage in the Holocaust.
Brenner, L. (Ed.). (2002). 51
Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. New Jersey:
Barricade Books.
Brenner, L. (1983). Zionism
in the Age of the Dictators. London: Croom Helm.
Bright, J. (2000). A
history of Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
Caplan, N. (2011). The
Israel-Palestine conflict: contested histories (Vol. 16). John Wiley &
Sons.
Chertok, H. (1988). Stealing
home: Israel bound and rebound. Fordham Univ Press.
Christison, K. M. (1987). Myths About Palestinians. Foreign Policy, (66), 109-127.
Davis, L. J. (1985). Myths
and facts 1985: A concise record of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Near
East Report.
Dean,
C. J. (2004). The fragility of
empathy after the Holocaust. Cornell University Press.
DellaPergola, S. (2003). Demographic trends in Israel and
Palestine: Prospects and policy
implications. The
American Jewish Year Book, 103,
3-68.
Dever, W. G. (2003). Who
were the early Israelites, and where did they come from? Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing.
Dubai, R., & Cohen,
H. (2010). Dealing with the Past when the Conflict is Still Present.
In Shaw, R., Waldorf, L., & Hazan, P.
(2010). Localizing
transitional justice: Interventions and priorities after mass violence.
Stanford University Press.
Finkelstein, N. G. (2003). Image
and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Verso.
Gelvin, J. L. (2014). The
Israel-Palestine conflict: One hundred years of war. Cambridge
University Press.
Giladi, N. (1998). The Jews of Iraq. The Link, 31(2), 1-13.
Gilmour, I., Gilmour, D., & Peters, J. (1985). From Time
Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-
Jewish Conflict over Palestine.
Grewal, B. S. (2003). Johan Galtung: Positive and negative
peace. School of Social
Science,
Auckland University of Technology, 30.
Halper, J. (2008). An
Israeli in Palestine: resisting dispossession, redeeming Israel. Pluto Pr.
Hadawi, S. (1991). Bitter
harvest: A modern history of Palestine. Interlink Publishing Group.
online
at: http://israelpalestinetimeline.org/.
Jamal, A. (2000). The Palestinians in the Israeli peace
discourse: A conditional
partnership. Journal
of Palestine Studies, 30(1),
36-51.
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing
for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse
University Press.
Marino, G. (2014). Fearful Asymmetry: Should Israel pull its
punches? Available
online at: Available online at:
Marshall,
A. M. (2006). Communities and culture: Enriching legal consciousness and legal
culture. Law & Soc. Inquiry, 31, 229.
Mendelsson, David. (2003). From the First Zionist Congress
(1897) to the Twelfth
(1921). Jewish Virtual Library. Available
online at: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/firstcong.html
Miall,
H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. In Transforming
Ethnopolitical Conflict (pp. 67-89). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Morris, B. (2009). One
state, two states: Resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. Yale University
Press.
Mulhall, J. W. (1995).
CSP, America and the Founding
of Israel: An Investigation of the
Morality of
America’s Role. Los Angeles: Deshon,
47-52.
Muste, A. J. (1940). Non-violence
in an Aggressive World. Harper & brothers.
Nets-Zehngut, R., & Bar-Tal, D. (2007). The intractable
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and possible
pathways to peace. Beyond
bullets and bombs: Grassroots peacebuilding between
Palestinians and Israelis,
3-13.
Newman, D. (2001). From national to post-national territorial
identities in Israel-
Palestine. Geojournal, 53(3), 235-246.
Pappe, I. (2007). The
ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld.
Patil, V. (2014). On Coloniality, Racialized Forgetting and
the “Group Effect”: Interrogating
Ethnic Studies’ Meta‐Narrative of Race. Journal of Historical Sociology, 27(3), 361-380.
Podeh, E. (2014). Israel and the Arab Peace Initiative,
2002–2014: A Plausible Missed
Opportunity. The
Middle East Journal, 68(4),
584-603.
Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution.
Polity.
Ravitzky, A. (1996). Messianism,
Zionism, and Jewish religious radicalism. University of
Chicago Press.
Rubin, M. (1956). The Absorption of Immigrants: A Comparative
Study Based Mainly on the
Jewish Community in Palestine and the State of Israel. By SN
Eisenstadt. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, Social Forces, 35(2), 175-176.
Benhabib, S. (1996). Identity, Perspective and Narrative in
Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in
Jerusalem”. History
and memory, 8(2),
35-59.
Shirch, L. (2015). Little
Book of Strategic Peacebuilding: A Vision And Framework For Peace With Justice.
Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.
State of Israel. (2015). Background
to the 2014 Gaza Conflict, 7 July – 26 August, 2014: Factual
and Legal Aspects. Available online at: http://mfa.gov.il/ProtectiveEdge/Documents/2014GazaConflictFullReport.pdf
Thompson, T. L. (2007). The
mythic past: Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel. Basic
books.
Whitelam, K. W. (2013). The
invention of ancient Israel: the silencing of Palestinian history.
Routledge.
Yiftachel, O. (2006). Ethnocracy:
Land and identity politics in Israel/Palestine. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Yiftachel, O. (1999). ‘Ethnocracy’: the politics of judaizing
Israel/Palestine. Constellations, 6(3),
364-390.
Zeltzer-Zubida,
A & Zubida, H. (2012). Israel Studies
an Anthology: Patterns of Immigration
and
Absorption in Israel. Available online at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/zubida.html
Intractability and Contested Identity Issues: The Zionist Perspectives of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Reviewed by Ibrahim Magara
on
January 13, 2017
Rating:
No comments: