The Palestine-Israeli Conflict in regard to Zionist Practices (unpublished article)
Dr. Gamze Güngörmüş KONA
Abstract:There have been several political problems in the Middle East region. However, Jewish-laic Israeli state’s enlargement policies which caused a direct negative impact on Palestine-İsraeli relations has been the most important among those problems in the Arab-Muslim Middle East region. The mentioned conflict, which began along with the Zionist policies and intensified parallel to the establishment of Israel state, has become much more complex throughout the years. Following this process, several Arab-Israel wars have been experienced which resulted in huge loss for both sides. The peace plans aimed at terminating the conflict could not bring a permanent solution to the problem, on the contrary, along with those plans Israeli state could have enlarged its sphere of influence in the region. The conflict, that remained unsolved due to the clashing interests of the sides and due to the interventionist policies of the big powers, is being tried to be solved through the Road Map peace plan currently. However, just after the application of the first level of that last plan the clashes have increased., and İsraeli state has placed itself in a position which can not be controled easily. In this study, on the one hand, it was explained that the political attempts that the Jews had made from the second half of the 19th century along with the zionist policies to the establishment of the Israel state did affect Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East region , on the other hand, it was also pointed out that in what ways three important Arab-Israeli wars and the peace plans/negotiation attempts affected Israeli state’s status and political stand in the Middle East region before both the Palestinians and the Arabs, and how the Israel state gained that political power in time in the region.
Key Words: Zionism, Palestine-Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli wars, Palestine, peace process, Road Map.
İntroduction: The Source of the Problem - Zionism and the Israeli Settlement Until the World War I
In the period until the World War I, not a İsraeli state or the enlargement policies of that state but only the efforts of the Jews so as to obtain a land and to settle on that land can be mentioned. The first of those efforts started with the application of Zionist policies. So, Zionism has been regarded as the most influencial among those efforts. “Zionism, as a European movement came to be seen initially as another attempt by Western imperialism to subordinate Muslims to Europeans and became even more threatening once it was realized that the Zionists wished to take part of, what had been Arab lands for centuries and remake it into a Jewish homeland” (Smith, 1996: 33-34).
Modern Zionism dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century, which refers the wish to establish an independent Jewish existence in Palestine. That modern zionism differed from the traditional zionism, that traditional zionism sees the establishment of Jewish state as a religious reward that can be given only by the Yahweh. However, modern zionism is secular and aims to use political activity to establish Israel state. Mainly, the prosecutions Jewish people underwent, discrimination and hostility that is shown to them gave rise to zionism. Jews became more adherent to their distinctive community life, after the harsh reactions coming from society. Especially, attacks on Jewish communities in Russia and Eastern Europe made them more reluctant to leave the country and some Jews immigrated to Palestine. These reople begun to set up Jewish agricultural settlement which was supported by wealthy western Jews.
Moreover, an important event took place for Jews, in 1897, that The First Zionist Congress was realised in Basel by Theodor Herzl. The founding elements of zionist policy were determined in that congress. The plan that Herzl proposed mainly conveyed the essence of decisions. According to this plan; an organized Jewish colonization in Palestine should be materialized, an internationally recognised legitimate right for the colonization of Palestine should be obtained, and the establishment of a permanent organization for Jewish people unity should be realised (Taylor, 2001: 18). The congress declared its goal as the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law. It was obvious that the main purpose of that congress was to create a Jewish State but it could not openly declare that, due to the probable reaction of the Ottoman Empire to the notion of a Jewish state on a land which it was controlling.
During that time, Jewish imigrants in Palestine purchased lands by the aid of foreign consuls, despite the fact that Ottoman officials opposed those purchasings. Between 1904 and 1914 a second wave of Jewish imigration came to Palestine, that intensified the Jewish population in the region. Consequently, Arab people became worried about the increase in population of Jews. Despite the fact that Jewish settlement created a common discontentment among Arabs, no direct action was taken to stop Jewish settlement. There were just individual protests against those settlements.
Zionist Movement During the World Wars I-II
For the first years of war, Palestine had no strategic importance except for the fact that, after the war Palestine would be a buffer-zone between Syria and Lebanon under the control of French and British-held Egypt. However, after the Revolution in Russia, British was alarmed that Germany would then use all its power against the Entente Powers. As a result, Britain decided to support zionists in Palestine, in return to support of Jews in Russia would be gained and would take Russia back to war. Moreover, British government would gain the support of Jews in U.S.A., so Jewish lobby would urge U.S. government to join the war on the side of Entente powers. In order to get the support of Jews, foreign minister of Britain Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to the Jewish member of British parliament Lord Lionel Walter Rothchild on 2 November 1917. The following points were mentioned in the letter known as Balfour Decleration:
“I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of his Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of symphaty with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet. His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it is being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be Grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation” (Landen, 1970: 197 ; TIPH, 1997: 117-119).
However, while Britain was backing Jews for independence, they also made promises to Arabs. Britain promised to support the independence of Arab states, thus Britain intended to promote Arab revolts against Turkish army, that would draw Turks from Suez Canal and weaken the Ottoman Empire in the region. It was obvious that such promises to both Arabs and Jews were contradictory, but Britain assumed that they would iron out conflicts among them, after the war.
After the World War I, Syria and Lebanon were under the mandate of France, and Paletsine, Iraq, Trans-Jordan under the mandate of Britain. Britain was responsible for the administration of both Arabs and Jews in Palestine. However, during this period, Arabs were not represented equally, despite their majority population in the region but Jews became more influential and powerful in all departments of government, that gradually Arabs were excluded from economic and political life. Furthermore, land purchases by Jews increased. Due to the lack of capital, Arabs could not catch up with the economic development of Jews. Therefore Arabs had to sell their lands. Those new Jewish-owners did not want to see Arab tenants, peasants on their lands. These people were taken away from their lands and became landless and discontented class, also transfer of land to non-Arabs caused agitation among Arabs.
Consequently, Arab riots broke out in 1929 against Jews. Head of the British commission responsible for investigation of riots, Walter Shaw stated not only the reasons of riots, but also the basis of Arab-Israeli conflict in general: “The fundamental cause (of the outbreak) is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent on the disoppointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future... The feeling as it exists today is based on the two-fold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and placed under the economic domination of Jews” (Smith, 1996: 90).
Enlargement of Israeli Influence in the Middle East: Establishment of Israel State and 1948-1967-1973 Wars
After Nazi government’s oppressions on German Jews, another Jewish immigration wave came to Palestine. This event intensified Jewish population in Palestine, also led the enforcement of Arab discontent. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly approved the plan that Palestine would be shared by two states to be established by Jews and Arabs, and that Jarusalem and nearby would be given an international status (Bilen, 1996:12-13). Despite the fact that Jewish population was minority on the land, the independence of Israel was declared on 14 May 1948 following the UN partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.
All Arab regimes including Palestinian leader of the time rejected the partition plan and woved to destroy Israel, and the first Arab-Israel War began (McKinley, 1972: 87). Early on 15 May 1948 regular troops from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq entered Palestine to support the local Palestinian Arabs (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm,Israel’s War of Independence). By July 1949 Israel had repulsed the invasion, joined the UN, and been recognized by more than 50 governments around the world. In serious armistices with Egypt Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in 1949, Israel established borders similar to those of Palestine during the British mandate. Jordan retained the West Bank of the Jordan River, Egypt took over the administration of the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem was divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule.
The Year 1949, in which the first Arab-Israel War ended, has many meanings for Palestinians. It means the year in which they lost their country, in which about 1.000.000 of the total Palestinian population of 1.4 million people became refugees (Benny, 1989: 297). So, during the war of 1948, Israeli gained some of territories held by Arabs, and expelled them from these territories. According to Israel officials, those Arabs who did not run away became today’s Israeli Arab citizens and those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of Palestinian Arab refugees (www.masada2000.org/historical.html, Palestinian Arab Refugees).
“The Arabs rejected the legitimacy of the Jewish state, whereas the Israelis were determined to convince the Arabs that they could not threaten their existence. A new phase of the conflict now began, focusing on Arab-Israeli state and affected to a much greater degree than previously by great power rivalries and the contiuing confrontation between the Soviet bloc and the western powers” (Smith, 1996:148). It was obuious Arab aggression toward Israeli was because of their perception that Jews captured their homelands by the help of Western Imperialsm. So, Israeli was seen as a tool of imperialists in the region.
An important event took place in the Middle East, after the revolution in Eygpt (1952), Eygpt defeated French-British-Israeli troops in Suez War. This event had two important results, one was that Eygpt gained prestige and became the leader of the Arab world, so Eygpt pursued an anti-Israeli policy, that it was an important side in Arab-Israeli conflict. Second results was that while British influence was lessened, Soviet and American influence increased.
In the history of Arab-Israeli conflict, second important war occured in 1967, after the war of 1948. Six day war of 1967 was mainly the result of the Israel’s existence on Arabian lands. Another reason was the Eygpt’s anti-Israeli policy in order to gain power among Arab states. Eygpt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israelis. However, Israeli defeated Arab powers and Israeli armies conquered the West Bank, including the old city of Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Syrian Golan Heights, defeating the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. But more than that, Israel created a new reality in the Middle East and sowed the seeds for deep dissent within its own society, and ideological settlers quickly moved into the West Bank, Golan, and Gaza and created new settlements (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, An Incredible Six Days). Today over 400.000 Israelis live on the land conquered in the 1967 war. The Six Day War had a profound effect on the Arab world and in its aftermanth many of the leaders held responsible for the defeat. It also led the increase of anti-Western feeling, since the West was seen as having supported Israel. It also led the restructure of the Arab guerilla movement and the emerge of the Palestinian state (www.historychanel.com, A Brief History of Palestine).
Until the war of 1973 - the third important war in Arab-Israeli conflict - many clashes took place between Arabs and Israelis. On 6 October 1973, it was Israel’s turn to be taken by surprise, the October War between Israel and Arab states broke out. Egyptian forces blasted their way through the sand defenses built around the Israeli lines at the Suez Canal and succeeded in crossing the waterway (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, Israel Caught On the Hop, 1973). The Arabs showed that they had improved their strategy since 1967. But in fact, it gave Egypt the political victory it needed to sue for peace with honor. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat went on to fly to Jerusalem in 1977 and became the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. In 1979 Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in a peace treaty that formally ended the 30 year state of war between the two countries. Egypt in return, recongnized Israel’s right to exist. Since then, Arab-Israeli conflict turned into the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
Negotiation Attempts-Camp David Accords and the Advantages İsraeli State Had
Prior to the 1973 war, efforts at peace negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis had been ineffective. After the war, there was a heightened sense of interest in resolving the outstanding issues between those actors. For Israel the 1973 war had shown that it was not invincible as the Arabs had been able to inflict a massive military blow to the country. For the Arab states and the Palestinians there was a strong desire to achieve some territorial adjustments (www.davem2.colf.edu, The Peace Process). The war also gave impetus to the international peace efforts in the region, as the European countries in particular began to interpret UN resolutions on the conflict in a more pro-Arab light. Also the United States now accepted the need to play in the peace process, both out of a desire to maintain regional stability but also to limit the changes of a superpower confrontation such as occurred during the 1973 war.
The first major event in the peace process was the Camp David Accords of 1978. President Jimmy Carter invited President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin of Israel to the Camp David to aggree on a peace treaty. There were two parts, the first was a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In the treaty, a formal peace was to be established, a definite border between two states was to be created, and there would be the beginnings of diplomatic and economic interaction between two states. In return, Israel would withdraw from the Sinai, returning control of this land to Egypt. The second part, “A Framework for Peace in the Middle East” was an agreement to seek solutions to the regional issues that remained. The framework included a provision for a five year period of autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza during which time negotiations were to take place as to the final settlements of those areas.
However, autonomy agreement was never implemented. In the Arab world, Sadat was branded a traitor. They saw Camp David as a separate peace with Israel, thereby weakening the unity of the Arab camp in its efforts to resolve other issues involving Israel. Sadat was later assassinated in 1981 in part because of Camp David. The removal of Egypt, the largest, and the most powerful Arab state guaranteed that no other Arab state would be willing to risque another war against Israel (www.davem2.colf.edu, The Peace Process).
During the 1980’s, there was virtually no progress on the peace front between either Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and the Arab states. On December 6, six Palestinian workers were killed in the Gaza Strip. It was the start of the Intifada, the revolution of the stones. In December 1987, the Intifada, the Palestine uprising in the occupied territories, began. Intifada is an Arabic world which means shaking. Palestinian youth were trying to shake off, or shake themselves free of 20 years of abject colonial humiliation by Israel. It was the movement of masses and the uprising in the occupied territories, after 20 years of Israeli rule, took everyone by surprise. Israel did not know how to react because it was difficult to denounce such a popular movement as the work of terrorists. After the Intifada 1.300 Palestinians, including 300 children, are said to have been killed, but the Palestinians had the sympathy of the world and also the Intifada pushed the PLO to moderate its position and moved them into a dialogue with the UN (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, Intifada – Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones).
Rabin and the Peace Process in the 1990s - The Madrid Conference
There was a resurgence of interest in the peace process following the 1991 Gulf War. The collapse of the Soviet Union as an Arab ally gave the signals of ending strategy which argued that Israel could be forced to negotiate due to the Arab strength. Also, the Palestinian support of Iraq during the Cold War had made it an international outcast. There were hopes that coming back to the negotiating table would generate positive feelings towards the Palestinians. Finally, a change in the Israeli government in 1992 brought into power a new leadership under Rabin, and that was considered to be more supportive for the peace process. One important effort towards those issues was the Madrid Talks of October 1991. The idea was to begin a series of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The Madrid Conference in 1991 was important because, for the first time, the representatives of Palestine and Israel met together to discuss their problems and peace (Journal of Palestine Studies, 1993: 9). Overall, the Madrid process has made little headway, though multilateral working groups continued to operate. After the Madrid conference, Israel and Palestinians agreed to mutual recognition and limited self rule for Palestinians in Jericho and Gaza. They also agreed to conclude a permanent treaty that would resolve the status of Gaza and the West Bank. But the more difficult issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinian refugees were postponed to other peace talks.
Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians today are based on the principles set down in the 1993 accords (Declaration of Principles). In this accord, Israel and PLO announced a major breakthrough in their relations and Arafat recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338, renounced terrorism and rejected the PLO Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. In a following agreement known as Oslo II, Israel and Palestinians agreed to the holding of elections for a Palestine Council. Israeli also agreed to a withdrawal from the major cities of the West Bank, turning administration Palestinian National Authority. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to make efforts to guarantee the security of Israelis (Abu-Amr, 1994: 74-78).
The positive attempts also continued in Ehud Barak period. By the mid year 2000, Clinton invited Barak and Arafat to a three way summit at Camp David, and the talks ended with no agreement, the two sides concentrated largely over the sovereignty and the control of Jerusalem. Since the election of Barak, there has been a renewed interest among all parties to move towards meaningful negotiations on a number of front. On the Palestinian-Israel track there have been a number of meetings between Barak and Arafat. In the recent Camp David talks, although the talks ended with no agreement, both parties seemed to be closer to a final solution.
However something in the peace process has changed with the election of Ariel Sharon, the leader of hard-line Likud Party complicated the peace process. Since Sharon’s controversial Semtember 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount, more than 400 people were killed in violent clashes between Palestinians and Israel. Both sides blamed the other for the violence, and each held the other responsible for ending it. The internal Israeli politics are further complicating the peace process. Sharon has said he would not give the Palestinians any more territory than they now control under interim accords-42 percent of the West Bank and two thirds of Gaza. Sharon also said he would continue to seek peace with the Palestinians but not on the basis of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which led the current peace talks, or ideas proposed by former US president Bill Clinton before he left the office in January. Sharon’s there main focus is on security, different kind of peace process, and united Jerusalem. Although the Israeli public voted in protest against Mr. Barak’s handling of negotiations with the Palestinians, they did not vote against the peace process. Mr. Sharon’s campaign promises included bringing both security and peace, but he insists he will not talk to the Palestinians until their four-month old uprising ends. Palestinians groups, however, insists that the violence will continue.
On the other hand, after the election of Sharon, Hamas (the military mean of Muslim Brothers) which is opposed to the peace process, increased its terrorist activities against Israel (Hürriyet News, 07.02.2001). Hamas is believed to be the most effective political movement in Gaza in which almost 750.000 Palastinians live. For Hamas, the main aim is that the land of Muslims should be free of Zionists and the only possible solution is jihad (Sel, 1993: 44-49).
As cited in The Economist in April 2001, Yasser Arafat is held personally to blame not only for what is perceived as a historic missed opportunity, but also for the escalating violence. Military sources argue anonymously in the press over whether Mr. Arafat explicitly orders specific acts of terrorism, or merely condones the violence in general. The Palestinian leader had expressed readiness to discuss a joint Egyptian and Jordanian proposal, which was raised by Hosni Mubarak in his meeting with George Bush in Washington on April 2nd. The proposal amounts to a package of reciprocal measures. Israael would lift its siege of Palestinian areas, and the Palestinian security forces would resume cooperation with their Israeli counterparts (The Economist, April 7th-13th 2001: 45-46).
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat got calls from US President George W. Bush urging them to halt the violence in the Middle East. An independent, international committee headed by the former US Senator George Mitchell issued its Mideast report calling for a halt to the violence, a timetable for a return to negotiations(http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/printThis?clickMap, May 23, 2001). Furthermore, the USA sent George Tenet, the CIA chief, to talk about how the ceasefire is to be monitored, and how to reinstate the long-lapsed ‘security cooperation’ between the two sides (The Economist, June 9th-15th 2001: 54). Tenet held separate talks with both sides as part of renewed US involvement in the Palastinian-Israeli crisis after Bush took Office in January, and also Tenet met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Despite those international efforts and despite Sharon and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat have publicly committed to breaking the cycle of violence, neither believes the other’s pledge. The Israelis were complaining that the Sharon Government has not done enough to protect the settlements from Palestinian attack. Many people regard Israel’s unilateral decleration of a ceasefire as a sign of weakness. There appeared little criticism of Arafat’s unilateral commitment to halt armed attacks against Israeli targets. But it has been made clear that Palestinians have a perceived right to continue to intifada or uprising with the aim of achieving an end to Israeli occupation. In eight months of violence, more than 480 Palestinians and nearly 110 Israelis died. The violence continued until September 11, 2001.
A New Possibility For Israeli Enlargement - The Road Map
The Decleration of the Road Map, which was firstly mentioned by the U.S. president George W. Bush, in his speech dated 24 June 2002, appeared on April 30, 2003 following Israeli parliament elections and the end of Iraq War. That Road Map is aimed at the establishment of Palestine state and finding a permament solution to Arab-Israel conflict (http://www.palastinemonitor.org/special %20 section/road %20 map/Roadmap-fulltext.htm).
The Road Map, prepared by the US, EU, Russian Federation and UK, includes a three-level period. (Dalgıç, 2003: 16-17). The first level contains the arrangements referring to the period between 24 June 2002 and May 2003. In that period it is assumed that Palestinian side would cease violation and the security cooperation between the sides would be restored based upon Tenet Plan. In that one-year period, while the Palestinian administration is to maintain detailed reforms such as the preparation of Palestine constitution and the realisation of free and fair elections. Israeli government is obliged to normalize the daily life of Palestinians, withdraw the lands occupied on 28 September 2000 and terminate the attempts in regard to the establishment of Jewish settlements.
In the second level, which is between June-December 2003, the attempts would concentrate on the establishment of an independent Palestine state having temporary borders. In that level, following elections, economic development of Palestine would also be supported.
The third level would contain the years 2004 and 2005. In 2005, Israel-Palestine talks would be provided in order to reach permanent status agreement. In those talks, refugees and the status of Jarusalem would be argued and ‘dual-state’ ideal which is based on the idea that Israel and independent, democratic Palestine would live in peace.
Although the Road Map pretended to be different and more promising than the previous peace plans and negotiation attempts, just after declaration of the Road Map, both sides hesitated to fulfill the requirements and put forward their own demands.
Conclusion
Currently, what will happen in the peace process is a controversial issue. There are five core issues that separate two sides. The first one is the fate of Jerusalem which is a city sacred to both sides and claimed by both sides as the capital. The second one is the status of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants who want to return to the lands they lost when Israel became independent in 1948. The property loss and long years in exile have generated deep anger against Israel. So far, Mr. Arafat has remained firm on the right of return, and he has been backed by Arab leaders. However, it seems that Israel will never accept an influx of Palestinians that would change its character as homeland created for Jews. Probably the only return these refugees can hope is the chance to live in a small and crowded Palestinian state into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The third issue which separates two sides is the borders of a Palestinian state. This also means that what security measures should be taken to ensure the safety of both people. The negative stand of some groups and political parties which have been against Palestine-Israel peace since the begining of peace process should be regarded as the fifth issue which seperates two sides. While in Palestine, those anti-peace process attempts depend on radical Islamist groups, in Israel, rightist and religious parties have been the source of those anti-peace process attempts. Since those groups and parties assume that they would directly be excluded from the system/order to be established along with the materialization of peace in the region, they do their utmost to prevent peace process. The last issue in peace process is the policy of global powers aimed at enlarging their sphere of influence through being a mediator between the conflicting sides. In order to have the possibility of intervention, they usually favour the continuity of conflict. By doing so, on the one hand, they shape the Middle East region according to their own desire, on the other hand, they convince the disputing sides that they would be unable to survive without the support of those big powers. So, this makes all peace plans invalid in time.
To sum up, it can be said that since the begining of the establishment of İsraeli state and following each peace plan or any negotiation attempt while the Palestinians lost their strength, Israeli state succeeded to enlarge its sphere of influence in the Middle East region.
References
Abu-Amr, Ziad (1994) “The View from Palastine: In the Wake of the Agreement”, Journal of Palestine Studies, 23 (2).
“After Tel Aviv Suicide Bomb”, The Economist, June 9th-15th 2001.
Benny, Moris (1989) The Birth of Palestinian Refuge Problem 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bilen, Özden (1996) Orta Doğu’da Su Sorunları ve Türkiye, Tesav Vakfı Yy., Ankara.
Dalgıç, Gökçe (2003) “Barış Sürecinde Yeni Bir Başlangıç? ‘Yol Haritası’”, Stratejik Analiz Dergisi, 4 (38).
“Dark Shadows Over Israel and Palestine”, The Economist, April 7th-13th 2001, 45-46.
Hürriyet News, 07.02.2001.
Landen, Robert G. (1970) The Emergence of Modern Middle East Selected Readings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
McKinley, Webb (1972) Trouble in the Middle East, New York.
Sel, Fatma (1993) “Filistin’de İslamın Yükselişi ve Örgütsel Hareketlilik”, Dünya ve İslam Dergisi.
Smith, Charles D. (1996) Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Taylor, Alan R. (2001) İsrail’in Doğuşu 1897-1947 Siyonist Diplomasinin Analizi, Çev: Mesut Karaşahan, Üçüncü Basım, Pınar Yayınları, İstanbul.
“The Oslo Agreement: An Interview with Nabil Shaath”, Journal of Palestine Studies, 22 (1), Spring 1993.
Tiph (Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron), Introduction Program for the New TIPH Members, Hebron, 1997.
Internet
“A Brief History of Paletsine”, www.historychanel.com
“An Incredible Six Days”, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Intifada-Sticks and Stones and BrokenBones”, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm
“Israel’s War of Independence”, www.megastrories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Israel Caught On the Hop”, 1973, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Palestinian Arab Refugees”, www.masada2000.org/historical.html.
“Road Map”, http://www.palastinemonitor.org/special %20 section/road %20 map/Roadmap-fulltext.htm.
“Sharon and Arafat Get Calls From Bush Urging End to Violence”, May 23, 2001, http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/clickmap
“The Peace Process”, www.davem2.colf.edu.
Dr. Gamze Güngörmüş KONA
Abstract:There have been several political problems in the Middle East region. However, Jewish-laic Israeli state’s enlargement policies which caused a direct negative impact on Palestine-İsraeli relations has been the most important among those problems in the Arab-Muslim Middle East region. The mentioned conflict, which began along with the Zionist policies and intensified parallel to the establishment of Israel state, has become much more complex throughout the years. Following this process, several Arab-Israel wars have been experienced which resulted in huge loss for both sides. The peace plans aimed at terminating the conflict could not bring a permanent solution to the problem, on the contrary, along with those plans Israeli state could have enlarged its sphere of influence in the region. The conflict, that remained unsolved due to the clashing interests of the sides and due to the interventionist policies of the big powers, is being tried to be solved through the Road Map peace plan currently. However, just after the application of the first level of that last plan the clashes have increased., and İsraeli state has placed itself in a position which can not be controled easily. In this study, on the one hand, it was explained that the political attempts that the Jews had made from the second half of the 19th century along with the zionist policies to the establishment of the Israel state did affect Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East region , on the other hand, it was also pointed out that in what ways three important Arab-Israeli wars and the peace plans/negotiation attempts affected Israeli state’s status and political stand in the Middle East region before both the Palestinians and the Arabs, and how the Israel state gained that political power in time in the region.
Key Words: Zionism, Palestine-Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli wars, Palestine, peace process, Road Map.
İntroduction: The Source of the Problem - Zionism and the Israeli Settlement Until the World War I
In the period until the World War I, not a İsraeli state or the enlargement policies of that state but only the efforts of the Jews so as to obtain a land and to settle on that land can be mentioned. The first of those efforts started with the application of Zionist policies. So, Zionism has been regarded as the most influencial among those efforts. “Zionism, as a European movement came to be seen initially as another attempt by Western imperialism to subordinate Muslims to Europeans and became even more threatening once it was realized that the Zionists wished to take part of, what had been Arab lands for centuries and remake it into a Jewish homeland” (Smith, 1996: 33-34).
Modern Zionism dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century, which refers the wish to establish an independent Jewish existence in Palestine. That modern zionism differed from the traditional zionism, that traditional zionism sees the establishment of Jewish state as a religious reward that can be given only by the Yahweh. However, modern zionism is secular and aims to use political activity to establish Israel state. Mainly, the prosecutions Jewish people underwent, discrimination and hostility that is shown to them gave rise to zionism. Jews became more adherent to their distinctive community life, after the harsh reactions coming from society. Especially, attacks on Jewish communities in Russia and Eastern Europe made them more reluctant to leave the country and some Jews immigrated to Palestine. These reople begun to set up Jewish agricultural settlement which was supported by wealthy western Jews.
Moreover, an important event took place for Jews, in 1897, that The First Zionist Congress was realised in Basel by Theodor Herzl. The founding elements of zionist policy were determined in that congress. The plan that Herzl proposed mainly conveyed the essence of decisions. According to this plan; an organized Jewish colonization in Palestine should be materialized, an internationally recognised legitimate right for the colonization of Palestine should be obtained, and the establishment of a permanent organization for Jewish people unity should be realised (Taylor, 2001: 18). The congress declared its goal as the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law. It was obvious that the main purpose of that congress was to create a Jewish State but it could not openly declare that, due to the probable reaction of the Ottoman Empire to the notion of a Jewish state on a land which it was controlling.
During that time, Jewish imigrants in Palestine purchased lands by the aid of foreign consuls, despite the fact that Ottoman officials opposed those purchasings. Between 1904 and 1914 a second wave of Jewish imigration came to Palestine, that intensified the Jewish population in the region. Consequently, Arab people became worried about the increase in population of Jews. Despite the fact that Jewish settlement created a common discontentment among Arabs, no direct action was taken to stop Jewish settlement. There were just individual protests against those settlements.
Zionist Movement During the World Wars I-II
For the first years of war, Palestine had no strategic importance except for the fact that, after the war Palestine would be a buffer-zone between Syria and Lebanon under the control of French and British-held Egypt. However, after the Revolution in Russia, British was alarmed that Germany would then use all its power against the Entente Powers. As a result, Britain decided to support zionists in Palestine, in return to support of Jews in Russia would be gained and would take Russia back to war. Moreover, British government would gain the support of Jews in U.S.A., so Jewish lobby would urge U.S. government to join the war on the side of Entente powers. In order to get the support of Jews, foreign minister of Britain Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to the Jewish member of British parliament Lord Lionel Walter Rothchild on 2 November 1917. The following points were mentioned in the letter known as Balfour Decleration:
“I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of his Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of symphaty with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet. His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it is being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be Grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation” (Landen, 1970: 197 ; TIPH, 1997: 117-119).
However, while Britain was backing Jews for independence, they also made promises to Arabs. Britain promised to support the independence of Arab states, thus Britain intended to promote Arab revolts against Turkish army, that would draw Turks from Suez Canal and weaken the Ottoman Empire in the region. It was obvious that such promises to both Arabs and Jews were contradictory, but Britain assumed that they would iron out conflicts among them, after the war.
After the World War I, Syria and Lebanon were under the mandate of France, and Paletsine, Iraq, Trans-Jordan under the mandate of Britain. Britain was responsible for the administration of both Arabs and Jews in Palestine. However, during this period, Arabs were not represented equally, despite their majority population in the region but Jews became more influential and powerful in all departments of government, that gradually Arabs were excluded from economic and political life. Furthermore, land purchases by Jews increased. Due to the lack of capital, Arabs could not catch up with the economic development of Jews. Therefore Arabs had to sell their lands. Those new Jewish-owners did not want to see Arab tenants, peasants on their lands. These people were taken away from their lands and became landless and discontented class, also transfer of land to non-Arabs caused agitation among Arabs.
Consequently, Arab riots broke out in 1929 against Jews. Head of the British commission responsible for investigation of riots, Walter Shaw stated not only the reasons of riots, but also the basis of Arab-Israeli conflict in general: “The fundamental cause (of the outbreak) is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent on the disoppointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future... The feeling as it exists today is based on the two-fold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and placed under the economic domination of Jews” (Smith, 1996: 90).
Enlargement of Israeli Influence in the Middle East: Establishment of Israel State and 1948-1967-1973 Wars
After Nazi government’s oppressions on German Jews, another Jewish immigration wave came to Palestine. This event intensified Jewish population in Palestine, also led the enforcement of Arab discontent. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly approved the plan that Palestine would be shared by two states to be established by Jews and Arabs, and that Jarusalem and nearby would be given an international status (Bilen, 1996:12-13). Despite the fact that Jewish population was minority on the land, the independence of Israel was declared on 14 May 1948 following the UN partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.
All Arab regimes including Palestinian leader of the time rejected the partition plan and woved to destroy Israel, and the first Arab-Israel War began (McKinley, 1972: 87). Early on 15 May 1948 regular troops from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq entered Palestine to support the local Palestinian Arabs (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm,Israel’s War of Independence). By July 1949 Israel had repulsed the invasion, joined the UN, and been recognized by more than 50 governments around the world. In serious armistices with Egypt Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in 1949, Israel established borders similar to those of Palestine during the British mandate. Jordan retained the West Bank of the Jordan River, Egypt took over the administration of the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem was divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule.
The Year 1949, in which the first Arab-Israel War ended, has many meanings for Palestinians. It means the year in which they lost their country, in which about 1.000.000 of the total Palestinian population of 1.4 million people became refugees (Benny, 1989: 297). So, during the war of 1948, Israeli gained some of territories held by Arabs, and expelled them from these territories. According to Israel officials, those Arabs who did not run away became today’s Israeli Arab citizens and those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of Palestinian Arab refugees (www.masada2000.org/historical.html, Palestinian Arab Refugees).
“The Arabs rejected the legitimacy of the Jewish state, whereas the Israelis were determined to convince the Arabs that they could not threaten their existence. A new phase of the conflict now began, focusing on Arab-Israeli state and affected to a much greater degree than previously by great power rivalries and the contiuing confrontation between the Soviet bloc and the western powers” (Smith, 1996:148). It was obuious Arab aggression toward Israeli was because of their perception that Jews captured their homelands by the help of Western Imperialsm. So, Israeli was seen as a tool of imperialists in the region.
An important event took place in the Middle East, after the revolution in Eygpt (1952), Eygpt defeated French-British-Israeli troops in Suez War. This event had two important results, one was that Eygpt gained prestige and became the leader of the Arab world, so Eygpt pursued an anti-Israeli policy, that it was an important side in Arab-Israeli conflict. Second results was that while British influence was lessened, Soviet and American influence increased.
In the history of Arab-Israeli conflict, second important war occured in 1967, after the war of 1948. Six day war of 1967 was mainly the result of the Israel’s existence on Arabian lands. Another reason was the Eygpt’s anti-Israeli policy in order to gain power among Arab states. Eygpt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israelis. However, Israeli defeated Arab powers and Israeli armies conquered the West Bank, including the old city of Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Syrian Golan Heights, defeating the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. But more than that, Israel created a new reality in the Middle East and sowed the seeds for deep dissent within its own society, and ideological settlers quickly moved into the West Bank, Golan, and Gaza and created new settlements (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, An Incredible Six Days). Today over 400.000 Israelis live on the land conquered in the 1967 war. The Six Day War had a profound effect on the Arab world and in its aftermanth many of the leaders held responsible for the defeat. It also led the increase of anti-Western feeling, since the West was seen as having supported Israel. It also led the restructure of the Arab guerilla movement and the emerge of the Palestinian state (www.historychanel.com, A Brief History of Palestine).
Until the war of 1973 - the third important war in Arab-Israeli conflict - many clashes took place between Arabs and Israelis. On 6 October 1973, it was Israel’s turn to be taken by surprise, the October War between Israel and Arab states broke out. Egyptian forces blasted their way through the sand defenses built around the Israeli lines at the Suez Canal and succeeded in crossing the waterway (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, Israel Caught On the Hop, 1973). The Arabs showed that they had improved their strategy since 1967. But in fact, it gave Egypt the political victory it needed to sue for peace with honor. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat went on to fly to Jerusalem in 1977 and became the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. In 1979 Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in a peace treaty that formally ended the 30 year state of war between the two countries. Egypt in return, recongnized Israel’s right to exist. Since then, Arab-Israeli conflict turned into the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
Negotiation Attempts-Camp David Accords and the Advantages İsraeli State Had
Prior to the 1973 war, efforts at peace negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis had been ineffective. After the war, there was a heightened sense of interest in resolving the outstanding issues between those actors. For Israel the 1973 war had shown that it was not invincible as the Arabs had been able to inflict a massive military blow to the country. For the Arab states and the Palestinians there was a strong desire to achieve some territorial adjustments (www.davem2.colf.edu, The Peace Process). The war also gave impetus to the international peace efforts in the region, as the European countries in particular began to interpret UN resolutions on the conflict in a more pro-Arab light. Also the United States now accepted the need to play in the peace process, both out of a desire to maintain regional stability but also to limit the changes of a superpower confrontation such as occurred during the 1973 war.
The first major event in the peace process was the Camp David Accords of 1978. President Jimmy Carter invited President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin of Israel to the Camp David to aggree on a peace treaty. There were two parts, the first was a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In the treaty, a formal peace was to be established, a definite border between two states was to be created, and there would be the beginnings of diplomatic and economic interaction between two states. In return, Israel would withdraw from the Sinai, returning control of this land to Egypt. The second part, “A Framework for Peace in the Middle East” was an agreement to seek solutions to the regional issues that remained. The framework included a provision for a five year period of autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza during which time negotiations were to take place as to the final settlements of those areas.
However, autonomy agreement was never implemented. In the Arab world, Sadat was branded a traitor. They saw Camp David as a separate peace with Israel, thereby weakening the unity of the Arab camp in its efforts to resolve other issues involving Israel. Sadat was later assassinated in 1981 in part because of Camp David. The removal of Egypt, the largest, and the most powerful Arab state guaranteed that no other Arab state would be willing to risque another war against Israel (www.davem2.colf.edu, The Peace Process).
During the 1980’s, there was virtually no progress on the peace front between either Israel and the Palestinians or between Israel and the Arab states. On December 6, six Palestinian workers were killed in the Gaza Strip. It was the start of the Intifada, the revolution of the stones. In December 1987, the Intifada, the Palestine uprising in the occupied territories, began. Intifada is an Arabic world which means shaking. Palestinian youth were trying to shake off, or shake themselves free of 20 years of abject colonial humiliation by Israel. It was the movement of masses and the uprising in the occupied territories, after 20 years of Israeli rule, took everyone by surprise. Israel did not know how to react because it was difficult to denounce such a popular movement as the work of terrorists. After the Intifada 1.300 Palestinians, including 300 children, are said to have been killed, but the Palestinians had the sympathy of the world and also the Intifada pushed the PLO to moderate its position and moved them into a dialogue with the UN (www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm, Intifada – Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones).
Rabin and the Peace Process in the 1990s - The Madrid Conference
There was a resurgence of interest in the peace process following the 1991 Gulf War. The collapse of the Soviet Union as an Arab ally gave the signals of ending strategy which argued that Israel could be forced to negotiate due to the Arab strength. Also, the Palestinian support of Iraq during the Cold War had made it an international outcast. There were hopes that coming back to the negotiating table would generate positive feelings towards the Palestinians. Finally, a change in the Israeli government in 1992 brought into power a new leadership under Rabin, and that was considered to be more supportive for the peace process. One important effort towards those issues was the Madrid Talks of October 1991. The idea was to begin a series of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The Madrid Conference in 1991 was important because, for the first time, the representatives of Palestine and Israel met together to discuss their problems and peace (Journal of Palestine Studies, 1993: 9). Overall, the Madrid process has made little headway, though multilateral working groups continued to operate. After the Madrid conference, Israel and Palestinians agreed to mutual recognition and limited self rule for Palestinians in Jericho and Gaza. They also agreed to conclude a permanent treaty that would resolve the status of Gaza and the West Bank. But the more difficult issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinian refugees were postponed to other peace talks.
Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians today are based on the principles set down in the 1993 accords (Declaration of Principles). In this accord, Israel and PLO announced a major breakthrough in their relations and Arafat recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338, renounced terrorism and rejected the PLO Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. In a following agreement known as Oslo II, Israel and Palestinians agreed to the holding of elections for a Palestine Council. Israeli also agreed to a withdrawal from the major cities of the West Bank, turning administration Palestinian National Authority. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to make efforts to guarantee the security of Israelis (Abu-Amr, 1994: 74-78).
The positive attempts also continued in Ehud Barak period. By the mid year 2000, Clinton invited Barak and Arafat to a three way summit at Camp David, and the talks ended with no agreement, the two sides concentrated largely over the sovereignty and the control of Jerusalem. Since the election of Barak, there has been a renewed interest among all parties to move towards meaningful negotiations on a number of front. On the Palestinian-Israel track there have been a number of meetings between Barak and Arafat. In the recent Camp David talks, although the talks ended with no agreement, both parties seemed to be closer to a final solution.
However something in the peace process has changed with the election of Ariel Sharon, the leader of hard-line Likud Party complicated the peace process. Since Sharon’s controversial Semtember 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount, more than 400 people were killed in violent clashes between Palestinians and Israel. Both sides blamed the other for the violence, and each held the other responsible for ending it. The internal Israeli politics are further complicating the peace process. Sharon has said he would not give the Palestinians any more territory than they now control under interim accords-42 percent of the West Bank and two thirds of Gaza. Sharon also said he would continue to seek peace with the Palestinians but not on the basis of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which led the current peace talks, or ideas proposed by former US president Bill Clinton before he left the office in January. Sharon’s there main focus is on security, different kind of peace process, and united Jerusalem. Although the Israeli public voted in protest against Mr. Barak’s handling of negotiations with the Palestinians, they did not vote against the peace process. Mr. Sharon’s campaign promises included bringing both security and peace, but he insists he will not talk to the Palestinians until their four-month old uprising ends. Palestinians groups, however, insists that the violence will continue.
On the other hand, after the election of Sharon, Hamas (the military mean of Muslim Brothers) which is opposed to the peace process, increased its terrorist activities against Israel (Hürriyet News, 07.02.2001). Hamas is believed to be the most effective political movement in Gaza in which almost 750.000 Palastinians live. For Hamas, the main aim is that the land of Muslims should be free of Zionists and the only possible solution is jihad (Sel, 1993: 44-49).
As cited in The Economist in April 2001, Yasser Arafat is held personally to blame not only for what is perceived as a historic missed opportunity, but also for the escalating violence. Military sources argue anonymously in the press over whether Mr. Arafat explicitly orders specific acts of terrorism, or merely condones the violence in general. The Palestinian leader had expressed readiness to discuss a joint Egyptian and Jordanian proposal, which was raised by Hosni Mubarak in his meeting with George Bush in Washington on April 2nd. The proposal amounts to a package of reciprocal measures. Israael would lift its siege of Palestinian areas, and the Palestinian security forces would resume cooperation with their Israeli counterparts (The Economist, April 7th-13th 2001: 45-46).
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat got calls from US President George W. Bush urging them to halt the violence in the Middle East. An independent, international committee headed by the former US Senator George Mitchell issued its Mideast report calling for a halt to the violence, a timetable for a return to negotiations(http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/printThis?clickMap, May 23, 2001). Furthermore, the USA sent George Tenet, the CIA chief, to talk about how the ceasefire is to be monitored, and how to reinstate the long-lapsed ‘security cooperation’ between the two sides (The Economist, June 9th-15th 2001: 54). Tenet held separate talks with both sides as part of renewed US involvement in the Palastinian-Israeli crisis after Bush took Office in January, and also Tenet met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Despite those international efforts and despite Sharon and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat have publicly committed to breaking the cycle of violence, neither believes the other’s pledge. The Israelis were complaining that the Sharon Government has not done enough to protect the settlements from Palestinian attack. Many people regard Israel’s unilateral decleration of a ceasefire as a sign of weakness. There appeared little criticism of Arafat’s unilateral commitment to halt armed attacks against Israeli targets. But it has been made clear that Palestinians have a perceived right to continue to intifada or uprising with the aim of achieving an end to Israeli occupation. In eight months of violence, more than 480 Palestinians and nearly 110 Israelis died. The violence continued until September 11, 2001.
A New Possibility For Israeli Enlargement - The Road Map
The Decleration of the Road Map, which was firstly mentioned by the U.S. president George W. Bush, in his speech dated 24 June 2002, appeared on April 30, 2003 following Israeli parliament elections and the end of Iraq War. That Road Map is aimed at the establishment of Palestine state and finding a permament solution to Arab-Israel conflict (http://www.palastinemonitor.org/special %20 section/road %20 map/Roadmap-fulltext.htm).
The Road Map, prepared by the US, EU, Russian Federation and UK, includes a three-level period. (Dalgıç, 2003: 16-17). The first level contains the arrangements referring to the period between 24 June 2002 and May 2003. In that period it is assumed that Palestinian side would cease violation and the security cooperation between the sides would be restored based upon Tenet Plan. In that one-year period, while the Palestinian administration is to maintain detailed reforms such as the preparation of Palestine constitution and the realisation of free and fair elections. Israeli government is obliged to normalize the daily life of Palestinians, withdraw the lands occupied on 28 September 2000 and terminate the attempts in regard to the establishment of Jewish settlements.
In the second level, which is between June-December 2003, the attempts would concentrate on the establishment of an independent Palestine state having temporary borders. In that level, following elections, economic development of Palestine would also be supported.
The third level would contain the years 2004 and 2005. In 2005, Israel-Palestine talks would be provided in order to reach permanent status agreement. In those talks, refugees and the status of Jarusalem would be argued and ‘dual-state’ ideal which is based on the idea that Israel and independent, democratic Palestine would live in peace.
Although the Road Map pretended to be different and more promising than the previous peace plans and negotiation attempts, just after declaration of the Road Map, both sides hesitated to fulfill the requirements and put forward their own demands.
Conclusion
Currently, what will happen in the peace process is a controversial issue. There are five core issues that separate two sides. The first one is the fate of Jerusalem which is a city sacred to both sides and claimed by both sides as the capital. The second one is the status of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants who want to return to the lands they lost when Israel became independent in 1948. The property loss and long years in exile have generated deep anger against Israel. So far, Mr. Arafat has remained firm on the right of return, and he has been backed by Arab leaders. However, it seems that Israel will never accept an influx of Palestinians that would change its character as homeland created for Jews. Probably the only return these refugees can hope is the chance to live in a small and crowded Palestinian state into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The third issue which separates two sides is the borders of a Palestinian state. This also means that what security measures should be taken to ensure the safety of both people. The negative stand of some groups and political parties which have been against Palestine-Israel peace since the begining of peace process should be regarded as the fifth issue which seperates two sides. While in Palestine, those anti-peace process attempts depend on radical Islamist groups, in Israel, rightist and religious parties have been the source of those anti-peace process attempts. Since those groups and parties assume that they would directly be excluded from the system/order to be established along with the materialization of peace in the region, they do their utmost to prevent peace process. The last issue in peace process is the policy of global powers aimed at enlarging their sphere of influence through being a mediator between the conflicting sides. In order to have the possibility of intervention, they usually favour the continuity of conflict. By doing so, on the one hand, they shape the Middle East region according to their own desire, on the other hand, they convince the disputing sides that they would be unable to survive without the support of those big powers. So, this makes all peace plans invalid in time.
To sum up, it can be said that since the begining of the establishment of İsraeli state and following each peace plan or any negotiation attempt while the Palestinians lost their strength, Israeli state succeeded to enlarge its sphere of influence in the Middle East region.
References
Abu-Amr, Ziad (1994) “The View from Palastine: In the Wake of the Agreement”, Journal of Palestine Studies, 23 (2).
“After Tel Aviv Suicide Bomb”, The Economist, June 9th-15th 2001.
Benny, Moris (1989) The Birth of Palestinian Refuge Problem 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bilen, Özden (1996) Orta Doğu’da Su Sorunları ve Türkiye, Tesav Vakfı Yy., Ankara.
Dalgıç, Gökçe (2003) “Barış Sürecinde Yeni Bir Başlangıç? ‘Yol Haritası’”, Stratejik Analiz Dergisi, 4 (38).
“Dark Shadows Over Israel and Palestine”, The Economist, April 7th-13th 2001, 45-46.
Hürriyet News, 07.02.2001.
Landen, Robert G. (1970) The Emergence of Modern Middle East Selected Readings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
McKinley, Webb (1972) Trouble in the Middle East, New York.
Sel, Fatma (1993) “Filistin’de İslamın Yükselişi ve Örgütsel Hareketlilik”, Dünya ve İslam Dergisi.
Smith, Charles D. (1996) Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Taylor, Alan R. (2001) İsrail’in Doğuşu 1897-1947 Siyonist Diplomasinin Analizi, Çev: Mesut Karaşahan, Üçüncü Basım, Pınar Yayınları, İstanbul.
“The Oslo Agreement: An Interview with Nabil Shaath”, Journal of Palestine Studies, 22 (1), Spring 1993.
Tiph (Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron), Introduction Program for the New TIPH Members, Hebron, 1997.
Internet
“A Brief History of Paletsine”, www.historychanel.com
“An Incredible Six Days”, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Intifada-Sticks and Stones and BrokenBones”, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm
“Israel’s War of Independence”, www.megastrories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Israel Caught On the Hop”, 1973, www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1948.htm.
“Palestinian Arab Refugees”, www.masada2000.org/historical.html.
“Road Map”, http://www.palastinemonitor.org/special %20 section/road %20 map/Roadmap-fulltext.htm.
“Sharon and Arafat Get Calls From Bush Urging End to Violence”, May 23, 2001, http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/clickmap
“The Peace Process”, www.davem2.colf.edu.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder