Dr. Rashid Askari
Thursday, October 13th, 2011 
Dr. Rashid Askari teaches English literature. Email: rashidaskari65@yahoo.com
Thursday, October 13th, 2011
The story of Israel-Palestine strife is the same old story that has been nagging social conscience for more than half a century now. The bulk of the global current affairs has always been revolving around West Bank (of the River Jordan) or Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem or Ramallah. The Palestinians, who lived in the British-mandated (1920-47) Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and their descendants are fighting tooth and nail for liberation from Israeli occupation. Israel on the contrary, is hell-bent on fighting to restore the so-called ‘Old Testament Kingdom’ to its ‘rightful owner’. The indomitable courage, stubbornness, and religious zeal of the warlike Arab Bedouins on one hand, and the unscrupulousness, military strength, and belligerent attitude of Israel on the other have kept these two peoples always at daggers drawn. To this has been added Uncle Sam’s active practical support which is giving Israel the upper hand. Sometimes, however, a saving grace grows in the situation, but that is owing to the warring camps’ self-defence strategy and international pressure. As a matter of fact, Israel-Palestine problem is an impossibly knotty problem, a permanent solution to which has been a far cry from reality.
As far as the present state of affairs is concerned, the problem has assumed massive proportions. All attempts to cement Israel-Palestine relations have proved Sisyphean. Having the blindest bit of care in the world, Israel is showing an unabashed display of its military might against the weaker opponent— Palestine. Even after the most recent UN bid to renew peace talks in the wake of the Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas’ application for full member status of Palestine, Israel has declared the establishment of more than 1100 settlements in East Jerusalem as a part of ethnic cleansing. This would, sure, cast a shadow on the new peace process much before the ice starts being broken. But who is to blame? A series of articles in the American press have held the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responsible for the deadlock in the peace process. In the last UN General Assembly meeting on 23rd September, 2011 Mahmoud Abbas’ speech gained huge support for the membership bid from international community while his counterpart Netanyahu received cold welcome for his arrogance and combative gesture.
Israel is not as such the lone enemy of the Palestinians. It is at loggerheads with the whole range of the Muslim population spread over the vast Arabian Peninsula and the north of Africa. It is the only Jewish country in the entire Arab region as if sticking out like a sore thumb. Although for obvious geopolitical reasons some keep diplomatic mum about domineering Israel, the Arab people in general take a common dislike to Israel. So the proclamation of the State of Israel after the departure of the British occupying forces in May 1948 gave birth to a continued Arab-Israel hostility. Subsequently there occurred a series of military conflicts between Israeli and various Arab forces from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon most notably in 1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982.
During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, and established a military administration throughout the area. Although there was comparatively little civil resistance to Israeli authorities during the first decade of their occupation, this period of calm began to wane in the late 1970s and early 1980s as Israel waged a more aggressive course of establishing settlements in the West Bank which numbered more than 100 in the early years of the 21st century, and more than tripled during the administration of the sixth Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin (1979–83). The number of Israeli settlers increased more than fivefold. Besides, land, businesses, and buildings were expropriated from the Arab inhabitants. Hundreds of people were killed or maimed. Zionism turned into jingoism. All these give enough testimony to the fact that the Israelis must have a thought at the back of their mind to ultimately take over the area piecemeal.
In course of time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) appears in the limelight as the arch rival of Israel. This umbrella political organisation was formed at an Arab summit meeting in 1964 in order to bring together various Palestinian groups which were sporadically putting up clandestine resistance to the Israeli occupation forces. The more radical factions within the PLO remained steadfast in their goals of the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a secular state in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians would enjoy equal rights while the moderate factions proved willing to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel over the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The PLO, however, came into prominence only after the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967, and engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against Israel during the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s before entering into peace negotiations in the 1990s.
After Yasir Arafat(1929-2004) became the PLO chairman, there had been a great change in the policy of the organization. From 1974 he advocated an end to the PLO attacks on targets outside of Israel, and sought the world community’s acceptance of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In 1974 the Arab heads of state recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of all Palestinians, and the PLO was admitted to full membership in the Arab League in 1976. But it was excluded from the negotiations between Egypt and Israel which resulted in the Egypt- Israel peace treaty (1979), and failed to win Israel’s agreement to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The hostility mounted, and to destroy the PLO and its bases in Lebanon Israeli troops in June 1982 surrounded Beirut which had been the PLO’s headquarters for several years. However, following negotiations, the PLO forces evacuated Beirut, and were transported to sympathetic Arab countries. Having lost the military bases and being encouraged by the success of a popular uprising called intifadah, which began in 1987 in the occupied territories, the PLO leadership developed a more flexible and conciliatory policy toward peace with Israel. On November 15, 1988, the PLO proclaimed the “State of Palestine,” a kind of government-in-exile; and on April 2, 1989, the Palestinian National Council elected Arafat president of the new quasi-state. Moreover, the PLO tacitly acknowledged Israel’s right to exist by recognizing United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. It had thus shifted from the long-standing goal of replacing Israel with a secular, democratic state in Palestine to the policy of accepting separate states for both. The State of Palestine as they expected would occupy the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In keeping with this policy, PLO under Arafat’s leadership entered secret negotiations with Israel on a possible peace settlement. The Oslo Accords was signed on September 13, 1993, by Arafat and the leaders of the Israeli government. Israel and Palestine made agreements on mutual recognition, and set out conditions under which the West Bank and Gaza would gradually be handed over to the newly formed Palestinian Authority, and Arafat would be its first president. This transfer would take place over a period of five years during which the countries would negotiate a permanent settlement. Despite some success, the negotiations faltered sporadically throughout the 1990s, and collapsed completely amid increasing violence in late 2000 by Islamist groups like Hamas, which even threatened the PLO’s dominance within Palestinian society. Since 2003, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions Fattah and Hamas which at times led to internecine violence. The conflict became so intense that following Hamas’ seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority was split into two halves– Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance between the parties resulted in the collapse of a unified governance system.
Following the death of Yasir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas was elected the president of Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005. He was installed after intense international pressure as the Premier of PA in 2003 as an effort to circumvent Arafat, who was considered an impediment to peace by Israel and the United States. Abbas is now the President of PA. He seems to be a champion of peace. He renounces terrorism, calls a halt to the intifadah against Israel, and resolves to create an independent Palestinian State. The world is expecting to see a significant breakthrough in negotiations under his able leadership.
How long will this Israel-Palestine bad blood live on? The Hindu-Muslim conflict over ‘Babri Mosjid’ (Mosque of Babur) and ‘Rama Mandir’ (Temple of Rama) was mitigated by share and share alike. Egypt got back its due from Israel after recurrent negotiations, treaties, and accords. The Israel-Palestine hostility can reach such mutual settlements. The Arab state in Palestine should come into being as was envisioned by the 1947 UN partition plan. But in the first instance they should recognise each other which was agreed in the Oslo Accords. Despite dismal failure, the agreements so far done between Israel and Palestine must have little paved the way for mutual tolerance which can be taken on the plus side at this juncture. Both should come out of their conservative mindset, and accept the policy of peaceful coexistence. Six decades is enough to come to the moment of truth that none of them can completely destroy the other, and nothing good can be had from terrorism and counter terrorism. Yasir Arafāt of Palestine and Yitzhak Robin(1922-1995) and Shimon Peres of Israel were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace (1994) for their role in the creation of the Oslo Accords. They had contributed a lot to the development of Israel-Palestine peace process . Their followers should uphold the spirit of the peace movement.
Israel should get rid of its homicidal policy, and the PLO, of its suicidal role. Years of intra-party feuds have sapped the PLO of its viability, and allowed its opposition the pretext to raise the question as to who really has to be negotiated with for a sustainable peace in the Middle East. There should be one and only PLO, undivided and rock-solid whose multiple factions should speak with one voice on their statehood bid. The UN Security Council has taken up the issue of Palestinian application for UN membership. The Middle East Quartet – the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia – has asked for comprehensive proposals within three months on territory and security. It urges that the Israeli and Palestinian sides should meet within one month to agree on an agenda for new peace negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2012. But all these cannot hold out much hope for us. The United Nations is nothing more than a cold-comforter. Its strings are pulled by somebody else. Its peacekeeping role in the past and at present is frustrating. So we cannot hope that the Palestinians’ fate is going to be decided fairly and squarely in the foreseeable future. But it can be hoped against hope that their unity, self-realization, commitment to independence and above all massive international support could assure them a sure victory.
Dr. Rashid Askari teaches English literature. Email: rashidaskari65@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment