I. Introduction
The Arab-Israeli conflict may seem to be one of the longest-lasting international feuds of the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but in reality the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in actions and changes that took place only in the late nineteenth century. The conflict itself only truly came to a head after World War II made significant socio-political changes to the makeup of certain countries in the Middle East, effectively throwing off political and social power balances and provoking chaos and violence in the region. According to Riedel, the violence of the Arab-Israeli conflict has become largely localized to the territory of Israel, although many other nations have participated in the conflict to varying degrees (Riedel).
Like so many disputes, the Arab-Israeli conflict initially began as a territorial dispute, particularly over territories in the Middle East and Northern Africa, but over time, the long-term violence and struggle between peoples morphed into something much more than a territorial dispute. While the Arab-Israeli conflict can still be considered a territorial dispute today, no legitimate political scientist or analyst would simplify the issue to that extent; the problems that have arisen in Israel, Northern Africa and the Middle East as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict have become a religious, sociological, ideological, and territorial struggle (Reidel). Because both sides have suffered heavy losses over long periods of time, the struggle has been internalized and personalized-- and in many cases, the antagonism is passed down from generation to generation (Eiran). Looking at the history and the current state of the conflict can help determine potential solutions for the violence that plagues the area.
II. A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
The modern-day Arab-Israeli conflict has its roots in the late nineteenth century, beginning with British imperial rule in Palestine, but the conflict as it is recognized today did not truly begin until 1948 (Eiran). In 1948, approximately a year after the British rule in Palestine ended and the United Nations took over control of the negotiations regarding the territory of Israel, the Jewish People’s Council approved a measure that would form a Jewish state in Arab-ruled and occupied Palestine (Eiran). Prior to 1948, World War II had effectively increased Jewish emigration to then-modern-day Palestine, especially in light of the rumors that were emerging from Nazi Germany regarding the violence that Jewish people were facing in the country (Eiran). As a result, there was already a large Jewish population living in the territory that would soon become Israel. However, the Arabs that are native to Palestine felt that their land had been unfairly taken from them by the British earlier in the twentieth century.
Once the British removed themselves from the territory and allowed the United Nations to take over negotiations in the region, problems began to arise. In the days leading up to the formation of the state of Israel, the United Nations proposed a two-state solution to the problem of the multitudes of Jewish people sharing the Holy Land with the Arab population. The Israeli Jews accepted the two-state plan, while the Arabs rejected the potential plan, stating that Palestine, as a territory, belonged to the Arab population (Eiran). The United Nations declared the foundation of the State of Israel regardless of the agreement or disagreement of the Arab population, and Israel was founded in 1948 under extremely contentious circumstances.
Upon the foundation of the State of Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt quickly invaded the region, unwilling to allow a Jewish government to take control in the previously Arab-controlled territory of Palestine (Eiran). The Jewish government in Israel continued to extend the borders of the territory granted to them by the United Nations in the 1948 settlement, and this led to increasing pressures on governments in the area that had alliances with the Palestinians (Eiran). Allowing Israel free reign in the area caused a lot of tension in the surrounding nations, and even some fear of renewed European colonialism (Eiran). As tensions rose in the area, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, one of the only means of transport for oil and goods in the area (Riedel). This prompted a military response from Britain and France, a response that Israel joined and supported (Eiran).
When Israel joined the former colonial powers in their movement against Egypt in the Suez Canal debacle, as far as political and diplomatic ties in the region, the other nations in the region were all but unwilling to consider the legitimacy of the State of Israel (Eiran). The damage done to potential diplomatic ties by Israel during that conflict cannot be overstated; the countries involved saw Israel as working with colonial and hegemonic nations against the best interests of a sovereign nation in the region. For newly-independent former colonies, this action was considered a betrayal by a nation that was already largely disliked and distrusted in the region (Eiran). It was not until later in 1956 that Israel was forced to give up its occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, and the UK and France were forced to give up their occupation of the Suez Canal area (Eiran).
The modern-day struggle began with the foundation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which was the brainchild of Yasser Arafat (Eiran). The organization's missive was to destroy the State of Israel, and to restore Palestinian rule in the Israeli-occupied territory of Palestine. In the 1970s through the early 1990s, a number of Arab states signed tentative peace treaties with Israel. The first to sign was Egypt, but Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine have all signed treaties with Israel.
There are a number of circumstances that led to the violence between Israel, Palestine, and other local nations. However, one of the leading causes of violence is the apparent western hegemony and unfair rule regarding nations in the area. Eiran writes, “Of the 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel” (Eiran). Eiran proposes that the reactionary stance against Israel in the United Nations is a function of the member make-up of the United Nations. However, Eiran also notes that while the United Nations has consistently sided with Palestine in regards to its directives against Israel, Israel is not without allies, and powerful ones. The United States, for instance, supplies Israel with weaponry and money to defend itself against potential Palestinian attacks or other attacks against the Israeli state; European powers likewise often side with Israel in any international incident (Eiran). Israel is, at the present time, not without powerful friends; this outside involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict has also contributed to the violence in the area.
In 2006, a number of Hezbollah soldiers crossed into Israel and killed six Israeli soldiers, an act of war that initiated the Lebanon War (Levett). This war caused significant destruction in Lebanon, and cost Israel a number of lives as well, but rather than underscoring the problems of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ideological issues with al Qaeda extremism, the rift between the two sides merely deepened. A number of suicide attacks by Palestinians combined with ever-changing Israeli boundaries on Palestinian land and destruction of Palestinian homes has also deepened the rift between the two sides, making it seem more unlikely than ever that an agreement will be reached (Levett).
III. Al Qaeda Involvement in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
This is not to say that the one side of the issue or the other has done no wrong; both sides have committed violence, and both sides have been both proactive and reactionary insofar as the other side is concerned. However, in the western media, al Qaeda is often portrayed as a unified front of evil; in fact, the formation of al Qaeda and their desire to dismantle much of western society is very much a product of circumstance combined with religious extremism (Schweitzer). Of al Qaeda, Schweitzer writes that Israel represents a particularly troublesome remnant of cultural colonialism and imperialism that is heavily resented in the Muslim world. Schweitzer writes:
The worldview of al-Qaeda and its global jihad affiliates was and remains anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli to its core, and in this is no different from other extremist Muslim groups that preceded them. In their mind, Jews are part of a worldwide conspiracy where they teamed up with ‘crusaders’ (Christians) in a ‘Judeo-Christian plot’; over the years, they have been joined by Muslim ‘heretics,’ headed by the Shiites as well as ‘traitors’ from the Sunni community. This entire camp is an enemy of Islam that needs to be fought to the last drop of blood. According to this view, the State of Israel is the political incarnation of the plot and was deliberately planted in the region as a bone stuck in the throat of the Muslim world (Schweitzer).
Schweitzer goes on to state that in recent years, al Qaeda has been striking at the edges of Israeli territory, essentially testing the limits of Israeli power and willingness to engage in military activities with the group (Schweitzer). Osama bin Laden, prior to his death, supported the invasion of Israel by al Qaeda, as well as the use of violence against Israeli Jews, both within Israel and outside of Israel (Schweitzer). According to Schweitzer, Israel has been largely protected from al Qaeda attacks on its borders by the Egyptian and Jordanian governments’ vigilance, rather than by its own policies.
Al Qaeda’s interest in Palestine and the State of Israel is not necessarily support for the Palestinian cause on a nationalist level, nor is the al Qaeda hate for Israel directed specifically at Jews. Levett suggests, “This ‘Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,’ while leveraging the Palestinian issue for rhetorical purposes, focused on the United States, not Israel a February 1998 fatwa issued by Bin Ladin and a host of other radical Islamists insisted that killing ‘Americans and their allies is an individual duty for every Muslim’ [] In both pronouncements, the Palestinian issue is referenced in global, Islamic terms, not Palestinian nationalist ones, and is part of the larger call to liberate Islamic lands” (Levett). In short, al Qaeda is not particularly interested in the nationalist reasons for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but is instead taking advantage of the situation. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians feel wronged by the state of affairs in Israel, and al Qaeda’s call to arms against the oppressors would be extremely appealing to many vulnerable Palestinians (Levett).
If al Qaeda were to win general support in the Palestinian population, this would lead to a severe destabilization of the Israeli government. Although the Israeli government is weighted heavily in favor of the Jewish population, there are still members of the Israeli government who are Palestinian; because so many of the other states surrounding Israel have recently undergone revolution during the Arab Spring, al Qaeda could easily take hold in the region, causing further extremism in an already volatile environment. To avoid further extremism in the region, it is important to discuss the potential reasons behind Palestinian extremism, and the ways in which groups like al Qaeda take hold within populations that do not otherwise have a propensity for extremism or religious violence.
IV. Global implications for Sectarian and Religious Violence in Israel and the Middle East
In his work Descent into Chaos, Rashid writes extensively about the political and global diplomatic policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations. He writes that the Clinton administration was “hot and cold when it came to Afghanistan and chasing Al Qaeda” and had “no coherent strategy for undermining the Taliban regime,” which led to a strengthening of al Qaeda rather than a weakening of the group (Rashid). It was this strengthening of the regime that allowed al Qaeda to continue to grow operations, eventually integrating into Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and even the Palestinian populace in Israel (Rashid).
The Middle East is old and full of history, and many of the feuds and problems of the area are long-standing, and unlikely to be solved without significant discussion and diplomatic maneuvering. Maajid Nawaz, author of Radical and a former member of radical Islam, purports that the current tack that the Bush and Obama administrations have taken regarding peace in the Middle East and the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict are making the problems worse on a global scale.
Nawaz notes that American global policy has a tendency towards the multi-domestic, rather than the global; that is to say, American policy has a tendency to deal with nations individually, without considering their global policy toward world issues and how their policy toward a single nation will impact their global management policies (Nawaz). Nawaz notes that Israel is a prime example of this problem; Americans support Israel heavily, and it is verboten in American government to suggest that Israel is not in the right, regardless of the situation (Nawaz). However, by supporting Israel unconditionally, America is somewhat unwittingly strengthening the argument against American imperialism and hegemonic power that resonates amongst al Qaeda sympathizers.
V. Potential Solutions to Violence
A number of solutions have been proposed for the Arab-Israeli conflict, although some of them are more cohesive and logical than others. The first proposed solution is a one-state solution for the territory currently known as Israel. Today, the political situation in Israel is tenuous, with Palestinians controlling ever-changing tracts of land within the Palestinian state. Some experts advocate for a one-state solution, meaning that the Palestinians and the Israelis would be joined in statehood under a single government. If this were the case, Palestinians and Israelis would share the responsibility for rule under a form of government that both sides agree upon. In theory, this seems like an idea option, but in reality, there has been too much violence to create a workable state system that is satisfactory to both the Israelis and the Palestinians (Schweitzer). Any attempts that have been made to integrate both sides into a single state has been met with cries of outrage, and suggestions that one side is favored over the other; in practice, this solution seems unlikely to work, as finding a common ground between both sides would be monumentally difficult.
Another solution for the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict is unilateral withdrawal of Israel and Israelis from the area (Schweitzer). Early in the history of Israel, this may have been a workable solution, but today, many Israelis have lived in Israel for their entire lives; some may be second or third generation Israelis. These people know no home but Israel, and it is unlikely that they would be able to relocate elsewhere (Schweitzer).
The final potential solution, and one which has many variants and much more room for cooperation is the idea of a two-state solution. This may be the formation of a second state in the same way the Vatican is its own state, enclosed within Rome, or it may be a second state in the same way that Britain and France are separate. Clearly, there must be some form of cooperation between the two states, but the level of integration between Israel and Palestine can vary depending on the agreement reached by both sides (Schweitzer). The best solution for Israel and Palestine is to create two separate states with cooperative governments, and a third, neutrally-split governmental entity that is responsible for Jerusalem, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim Jerusalem as a holy site.
VI. Conclusions
Regardless of the agreement reached, there will be problems in the interim. However, allowing continued violence in the area and continuing American involvement with the Israeli government are not minimizing problems in the Middle East. To minimize the strength and power of al Qaeda, creating fair and unified policies towards countries in the Middle East-- particularly countries like Israel-- is of the utmost importance.
Works cited
Bin Laden, Najwa, Omar Bin Laden and Jean P Sasson. Growing up Bin Laden. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. Online.
Eiran, Ehud. "Arab-Israeli Conflict." (2011): Online.
Levitt, Matthew. "Al Qaeda Targeting Israel: Between Rhetoric and Reality." Orbis, 54. 3 (2010): 413--425. Online.
Nawaz, Maajid and Tom Bromley. Radical. London: WH Allen, 2012. Online.
Quṭb, Sayyid. Milestones. Indianapolis: American Trust, 1990. Online.
Rashid, Ahmed. Descent into chaos. New York: Viking, 2008. Online.
Riedel, Bruce. "Al Qaeda strikes back." Foreign Affairs, (2007): 24--40. Online.
Schweitzer, Yoram. "The Terrorism Threat against Israel from al-Qaeda and Global Jihad." Military and Strategic Affairs, 2. 1 (2010): Online.
Soufan, Ali H, Daniel Freedman and Adrian Kitzinger. The black banners. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2011. Online.
Warrick, Joby. The triple agent. New York: Doubleday, 2011. Online.
