Damascus Gate

“We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the essence of which is that we shall actually withdraw from almost all the territories, if not from all the territories.”  -   Ehud Olmert

For years Israel has followed the policy of “creating facts on the ground”.  They have built settlements in the West Bank with utter disregard for the rights of the Palestinians who’s land they confiscate despite continued international condemnation.  Over the years, they have succeded in filling the West Bank with roads, settlements, settlers, walls, and fences to the point that the “facts” have certainly been created.  Mission accomplished?  It appears not.  The facts may have been created but to say that Israel is ready to become a respected nation on the world scene has never been farther from the truth.

The recent comments by Ehud Olmert testify to the fact that Israel is at a crossroads.  Olmert is one of a growing number of Israelis that have realized that providing a state for the Palestinians is paramount to Israel’s continued existance as a Jewish state based on the following logical statements:

1.  A one-state solutions where every citizen has equal rights would necessarily lead to the undoing of the state of Israel.

2.  Therefore, a two-state solution must be found.

3.  Continued settlement building, wall construction, and land confiscation are increasingly making a two-state solution impossible.

A one-state solution would lead to the undoing if Israel because in the very near future, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within the country based on their larger growth rate.  The establishment of a Jewish Homeland was the single goal of the Zionist movement and a single state for all of its citizens instead of for Jews only in historic Palestine is an idea that is very unpopular with most Israelis.  In effect, Israel would cease to exist.

The closest the two sides have come to a two-state solutin was in 2000 when Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat met at Camp David.  The typical western analysis of the summit says that Barak offered Arafat a generous 92% of the Occupied Territories.  Arafat refused the “generous” offer and is blamed for the failure of the Camp David Summit.  In reality, the offer was anything but generous.  The land that Barak offered was crisscrossed by Israeli roads and settlements and divided into small “cantons”.  Israel reserved the right to make military incursions on large areas of the Palestinian territories and the right of return for the refugees was not granted.  There is no way that the Israeli offer could be considered a viable state.

Things are coming to a head.  With every day that passes, every settlement housing unit that is built, every settler that moves into the West Bank, and every mile of wall that is erected, the prospect of a Palestinian state alongside Israel becomes more and more impossible.  With this in mind, and considering the one-state alternative, it’s no wonder that Olmert is saying the things he is saying.

In closing, the creation of facts on the ground may soon be seen as a failed policy and it may change.  If a two-state solutions becomes impossible (as it may have already become), Israel has some very difficult decisions to make regarding its own survival.  They way they answer these questions will determine whether Israel will join the rest of the world of legitimate nations or whether they will remain a rogue country, condemned on the world stage.

Click here to read a list of the recent statements make by Ehud Olmert

Click here to read an accurate account of the Camp David Summit of 2000

For Egypt and Jordan, peace with their neighbors and security on their borders are both high on their priority list.  Both countries have officially make peace with Israel, Egypt in 1978 and Jordan more recently in 1994.  Both of these peace agreements were partially brokered by the United States and it is certainly within the strategic interests of both countries to remain on good terms with the United States.  The United States provides both Egypt and Jordan with a quite a bit of aid, Egypt receives about 2 billion dollars a year and Jordan receives approximately 660 million dollars a year.  This is a substantial amount for these countries but it comes at a price.  In short they have to be willing to play the part that the United States wants them to play.

Besides remaining partners with the United States, both Jordan and Egypt have another strategic goal which is to increase their standing and position of leadership within the Arab world.  Of course, these goals are often at odds.  Anwar al-Sadat had to choose between the two in the late 1970s.  To the detriment of Egypt’s standing in the Arab world and at the cost of his own life, Sadat choose to sign a peace agreement with Israel.  As a result, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat was killed two years after the agreement was signed by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Jordan has had to make similar decisions.  In 1970, during the event now known as Black September, King Hussein of Jordan ordered the expulsion of the PLO who had been using Jordan as their headquarters.    This desire to remain friends with the west and yet to stay respected by other Arab nations has characterized both Jordan’s and Egypt’s decisions in the recent past.

The strategic goals of these countries differ slightly, especially in the secondary motivations for seeking normalized relations with Israel (disregarding for the moment monetary aid).  Egypt was once the leader of the Arab world and is seeking to gain back some of the prestige that a leadership role offers.  Jordan on the other hand has to deal with a very real situation where their status as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is threatened by the huge amount of Palestinian refugees that are in the country, not to mention the millions more that could would come in if given the chance.  They have to balance their desire to help the Palestinians with their quest for national survival.  There has been talk about making Jordan a Palestinian state which is certainly not in the strategic interest of the government of Jordan.  They also have the added difficulty of dealing with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

Egypt’s situation is relatively easier but certainly not without challenges.  Sharing a border with both Israel and Gaza by default makes Egypt a major player in the conflict.  Egypt’s priorities were tested last January when the fence between Gaza and Egypt was destroyed by members of Hamas.  Palestinians flooded into Egypt to buy goods that had previously been unavailable or very expensive.  Israel, and therefore the United States, wanted Egypt to take control and close the border immediately.  Egypt stated that they would not use force to close the border but would close it when all the Palestinians has returned to Gaza.  Eventually they did however close the border.  That event brought to light the difficult situation that Egypt faces in trying to please the United States and yet not make enemies in the Arab world which has a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.

Bibliography:

Levinson, Charles. “50$ Billin Later, Taking Stock of US Aid to Egypt.” Christian Science Monitor. April 2, 2004.  <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html>.

“US Agreement to Increase Aid to Jordan Until 2013.” Jerusalam Post  September 23, 2008. 1996.  <http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017360229&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>.

Nafie, Ibrahim. “Building on the Past.” Al-Ahram. July 18-24, 2002. <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/595/op1.htm>.
“Wars of the World, Black September in Jordan 1970 - 1971.” onwar.com.  December 16, 2000. <http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm>.
“Pressure on Gaza’s Border Mounts.” BBC News. January 24, 2008. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7206217.stm>.

• The First Caliph, Abu Bakr (632-634 A.C.)
• The Second Caliph, ‘Umar (634-644 A.C.)
• The Third Caliph, Uthman (644-656 A.C.)
• The Fourth Caliph, Ali (656-661 A.C.)

Once ‘Ali is killed, the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs is said to have ended and the ‘Ummayad period or Caliphate begins.

The common misperception regarding the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is that it is a Mosque.  It is not in fact a mosque.  There are many theories regarding the purpose of the Dome of the Rock.  The most common is that it was built to memorialize the place where Muhammad ascended into heaven.  The problem with this theory though is that none of the many writings in the building talk about this event at all.  Most of the writing inside the Dome of the Rock talk about the oneness of God.  It seems strange then that this building would have been built, with a huge rock as its central feature, but that no mention would be made inside regarding its purpose.

Another theory is that it was built as a second place of pilgrimage in an attempt by its builder, ‘Abd al-Malik to bring pilgrims to Jerusalem instead of to Mecca.  At the time (around 692), Ibn al-Zubayr was occupying Mecca (Ibn al-Zubayr was later conquered by ‘Abd al-Malik and the Caliphate was restored).

As I mentioned earlier, most of the inscription in the Dome of the Rock have to do with the oneness of God.  This was seen by some as a direct confrontation with Christian belief in the Trinity.  Therefore, the Dome of the Rock, built on the Jewish Temple Mount, in the holiest city for Jews and Christians, could simply be a bold statement to the world proclaiming the powerful presence of Islam.

There is a constant and noticeable thread amongst most of the proponents of Zionism during its infancy that the influx of Jews into Palestine would actually be beneficial to the people there.  This belief is very much rooted in the colonial beliefs at the time, that the European influence in less developed areas would serve to bring those areas up to western standards.  This belief is stated in Herzl’s pamphlet called “The Jew’s State:  An Attempt as a Modern Solution to the Issue of the Jews”.

Some of the first Jewish settlers in Palestine (1880s and 1890s) used this as their justification for hiring Arabs to work their lands.  Later immigrants who came under the Zionist movement proper valued manual labor as a means of building the country and of transforming the Jewish culture.  The early immigrants said that by hiring Arabs, they were benefiting the local population which would lead to better relations.

Even the Zionist critic Ahad Ha’ad, who condems Jews in Palestine for their mistreatment of Arabs, believes that this will all be overcome once their “extensive and rich holdings, their unity, and their exemplary way of life” becomes more a way of life.

Obviously this has not come to be.

1.     What are the conceptions that Dowty says many assume to be true about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but he identifies as myths?

Myth

The conflict between the Palestinians and Jews is an “age old” conflict.

Reality

People think that because the land itself has such a long history, that the conflict also much have a long history.  Although some of the roots or underlying causes of the conflict can be said to go back thousands of year (the claim of the Jews that the land was given to their forefather Abraham and promised to his descendants), the actual conflict as we know it today only goes back to the end of the 1800s when Jews started to immigrate to Palestine as a result of the Zionist movement.

Myth

The conflict is based on ethnic hatreds.

Reality

Dowty claims (and this claim is disputed by Palestinians) that the Palestinians didn’t have a strong identity as Palestinians or even as Arabs in the late 19th century.  In fact, the Zionist claim is that the Palestinians gained their identity as Palestinians and even as Arabs as a result of the conflict with the Jews and not before.  The idea that Judaism is an ethnicity and not only a religion was also new at the time that the conflict started and was necessary to claim the land.  Jews historically have been treated will in Arab countries.

Myth

The conflict is based on a “clash of religions”.

Reality

Both Judaism and Islam are very tolerant toward the other.  Jews in Islam are considered “People of the Book” along with Christians and Judaism accepts Islam as another monotheistic faith.  The counter point to this could be that Muhammad expelled three Jewish tribes from Medina and changed the direction of the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca soon after his arrival.

Myth

The conflict is an unceasing cycle of violence and cannot be solved.

Reality

Dowty’s main point here is that there have been periods of violence and periods of calm throughout the time of the conflict.  He also mentions that there has been economic interaction from the beginning until present day.  The fact that violence has not been continuous suggests that a solution is within the realm of possibility.

2.     How does Dowty, (in contrast to what he describes as myths) define the conflict?  Be specific.

Dowty describes the conflict in three ways:  as a territorial conflict where two peoples want the same piece of land, as an ethnic conflict where the objectivity of the territorial conflict is replaced by subjective feelings on both sides toward the other, and a settler conflict where a native population resists the colonizers.

As a territorial conflict, it is objective.  Simply put, both sides want the exact same piece of land and for either one to possess it, that means that the other cannot possess it.  Neither side can get all of what they want.  The source of conflict is tangible, a piece of land.

Although objective reasons are given as the major causes of friction, there are also subjective causes given to the conflict.  Whether it was because of the conflict or concurrent with the conflict, both the Palestinians and the Jews have become ethnic groups.  For the last 130 years, each side has built up thoughts, feelings, ideas, misperceptions, and dislikes toward the other ethnic group.  They are often taught things about the other that are not true or taught to treat the other simply based on their ethnicity.  In other words, what started off as an objective issue over land has blossomed into a subjective clash where members of each side are often to simply hate the other just because they are “the enemy”.

The third definition of the conflict is that of a native population resisting a colonizing power.  This conflict fits that description because even though the Jews did not come from their own land, they came as a nation and referred to themselves as colonists.  The Jews also held beliefs common to other colonizers that their occupation would improve the situation of the native population.

3.     In what ways does Dowty says both Palestinian and Israeli nationalist movements were atypical, anomalous, didn’t fit the usual molds of categories?

Israelis

1.   They were atypical in their nationalistic movement because they did not have a territorial base. Most other movements of the time were based on an ethnic group striving for recognition as a state. The Jews were minorities in all of the European states and were not located near each other in any way.
2.   There was no place in Europe, where most of the Jews lived, that could be considered their homeland even thought they lived in all these places.

Palestinians

3.   It is unclear as to whether the national movement in question here is the Palestinian national movement or other Arab national movements.  The main enemy of Israel had varied between the Arabs and the Palestinians thoughout their history.
4.   Also, according to Dowty, the identity of the Palestinians was only developing during this period of nataionalisation, they did not have the long history of being a political entity that many of the groups seeking nationhood had.  Palestine was an area long before it was a political group.

4.What are some of the ways Dowty describes the state of affairs, conditions, in the 19th century Ottoman Empire, that sets the stage or creates circumstances ripe for the conflict in Palestine to emerge (between the two emerging nationalist movements)?

The Ottoman empire was in a state of decline.  Dowty states that at the start of Zionist movement the Ottoman empire had lost half of its territory to Russia, France, and Great Britain.  Many of its former territories gained or won their independence.  Also, the French invasion of Egypt brought a lot of western thought and technology to the region.  The European powers were claiming guardianship over their people in the Ottoman lands.  This guardianship was called Capitulations.  Although they wanted to end these practices, the were unable to do so.  The Ottomans didn’t want like the European Jews who came and settled in mass and who could possibly be able to claim guardianship from the European nations in which they came.  The Ottoman empire was weak, and had to be rescued during the Crimean  War by Britain and France.  Since the Ottomans didn’t want another European minority settling in Palestine, which had become a contentious area, and since they were sufficiently weakened, they had little choice but to support their fellow Muslims.

5.     What are the broad outlines of “The Jewish Story” that Dowty presents, that trace Jewish self/group identification with the “Land of Israel”?  What is the narrative that Dowty presents of how Zionism emerges from within the broader context of Jewish history?

Think about and elaborate of the themes of:
Location/Placement/Displacement
Issue of Sovereign/Minority Status
Persecution
Nationalism

Dowty talks about how the Jews have one of the longest histories as a people, going back to Abraham around 4000 years ago.  Abraham settled in the land of Canaan, present day Palestine, and therefore they consider this land their homeland.  Although there have always been a small amount of Jews in Palestine, they were mainly scattered historically.  What would be considered the center of Jewish culture moved from Babylon to Spain to the Ottoman Empire to Eastern Europe and others.  Jews were continually expelled from the places that they lived, even though they may have been originally welcomed into these places and often times held high positions in society.  Although they were a nation, they never had a national home.  They held minority status in every single country in which they lived and often became scapegoats when things in the society went poorly.  Each time they were expelled, they found new places to live, only to be persecuted in the new countries.

Eventually it started to become clear that unless something was done, the Jewish nation would continue to be a persecuted minority in whichever country they lived, exposed to the whims of the government.  Assimilation into society because less attractive as time after time, assimilated Jews became persecuted as the nature of the society changed.  Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was prompted to seek a national homeland for Jews in the aftermath of just such an event, a fully assimilated French Jew was wrongly accused of treason as a result of anti-semitism.

While being continually persecuted, the Jews also saw how many ethnic groups were gaining independence as nationalistic feelings swept over Europe.  The Jews felt the right to their own nation as well, especially since their heritage went back much farther then many of the other groups that were becoming nations.  At the same time, they realized that it would be harder and harder to be minorities in these newly formed nations.  Jews were continuing to suffer at the hands of European nations and more and more, Jews were realizing that assimilation was not the answer.

This is the stage where Jews start to move back to Palestine.  Before the official Zionist movement, there are several movements to start settling Jews in Palestine to create a national homeland.  These movements are a reflection of the disillusionment with attempts to live as minorities in other countries where sooner or later, anti-semitism always seems to come to the surface.

6.     What are the broad outlines of “The Arab Story” that Dowty traces in his account of how Arabs and then a collective group that self-identifies as Palestinians come to be in Palestine, with connection to and claims for the land, for nationhood?

Think about and elaborate on:
Arab/Islamic expansion
Grandeur
Ottoman Empire – state of affairs, shift of collective identity paradigms
Nationalism/s – different forms of collective identities that emerge

The Arabs, the original inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula transformed themselves from a conglomeration of non-affiliated tribes to a major empire in a matter of only about 15 years.  Their rise was unparalleled in world history.  Not only did Islam rise to become an empire, but for hundreds of years it was the world leader in culture and civilization.  From the Muslim lands came world changing innovation in the fields of literature, language, education, philosophy, theology, math, science, medicine, art, and geography.  It was a civilization of which anyone would be proud to be a part.  The Muslim traders saw worlds that the Europeans at the time only dreamed of.  Their cities were the jewels of the world, the first universities were established, innovations in math that are fundamental to  mathematics come from this time.  They drew on the achievements of the Greeks, Aramics, Byzantines, Persians, and Indians and then continued to creatively push forward their civilization.  At this time, European culture paled in comparison.

The power of the Ottoman Empire at this time was waning considerably.  By the time the French conquered Egypt in 1798, it was a foregone conclusion that the Ottoman Empire was not the powerhouse that it had once been.  They attempted to reform but it was too late.  As a response to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, people began to consider where their identities lay.  Pan Islam, which is a call to unite the Islamic world to face the new challenges was considered.  Some people thought that the solution to these foreign challenges was more local.  It is at this time that the residents of this area began to think of themselves as “Arabs” or as “Palestinians”.  The term “Arab” came to be used not just for inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula, but for all Arabic speakers.  This is Pan Arabism.  This was threatening to the Sultan, who was the Caliph.  This nationalistic Arab movement even talked about overthrowing the Sultan and eventually help in this cause during WWI.  Their identity became Arab instead of Ottoman.

The Palestinians began to feel their identities as Palestinians at about the same time that other Arab countries began their nationalistic movements.  Dowty is careful to state though that the Palestinian identity did not develop as a result of Zionism even though it was in its early stages at about the time that Zionism was starting.  The nationalistic feelings of the Palestinians started before that.

The fact that the nationalism of the Palestinians and the nationalism of the Jews occurs at roughly the same time is partly bad timing but partly based on the fact that the factors that brought them about are the same.  The late 1800s was a time when nations in Europe as well as in the Middle East were wrestling with their identities.

“The brave people of Georgia need our solidarity and prayers… We can’t turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peaceand stability of the world and the security of the American people.”

Dear Mr. McCain,

When you said these words at your acceptance speech, I couldn’t help but thinking of another group of people that needs our solidarity and prayers.  The Palestinians have been the victims of agression and international lawlessness for far too long.  I ask you this:  Why do we continue to treat Israel as a special case in the international arena?  Why do we allow them to blatently disregard UN Resolutions to the detrement of our standing in the world?  Why does Iraqi (1990) or Russian agression lead to military action or pleas for solidarity and prayers and yet Israeli agression lead to increased military support?  How long can we as a country make blanket statements like, “We can’t turn a blind eye to agression” and yet continue to do just that in the case of Israel and the Palestinians?  We are quickly and effectively alienation ourselves as a nation with these policies.

Signed July 1937.

It suggested a plan for the partition of Palestine.

A government report that suggesting that the amount of Jewish immigrants to Palestine should be limited and should be proportional to the ability of the area to absorb them.

Established the quota system.

Winston Churchill was Colonial Secretary at this time.

A letter between Foreign Secretary of Britian Arthur James Balfour and Lord Rothschild.  It promised support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

The letter was dated November 2, 1917.