Arab-Israeli Essay Plans

ESSAY PLANS: ARAB – ISRAELI CONFLICT [Responsibilities of players] It was primarily because of Israel’s provocative actions that aggravated the AIC from 1948-2000. Thesis •  AIC 50 years of regional instability that saw 4 wars, prolonged period of violence involving Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs •  While Israel’s provocative actions contributed aggravated and escalated the conflict, its actions were partly in response to the hostility of the Arab states and uncompromising actions of the Palestinians, who must also be held responsible for exacerbating the AIC. Argument 1 Israel’s uncompromising goal to maintain the Jewish character of Israel has led to the continued denial of a Palestinian Right of Return and persistent dispossession of Palestinians and obstructed possible resolution to the conflict, prolonging it. •  Since 1948, Israel has insisted that the state should retain its ‘Jewish Character’ à Promoted the Law of Return which asserts the undeniable right of all Jews to Israeli citizenship while denying Palestinian RoR, leaving them stateless •  Particularly after seizing the OT in 1967 (East Jerusalem, West Bank) à completion of full extent of Eretz Israel also completed al nakbha for the Palestinians •  Israel has held on to the OT and refused to grant Palestinians citizenship as it feared a ‘demographic time bomb’; that more Palestinians would dilute and undermine existence of Jewish character •  Made the conflict more intractable as it has made a two-state solution even more impossible with Israeli unwillingness to come to a compromise or give up the land Argument 2 Israel’s provocation against Palestinians, through the use of violence especially in the Occupied Territories, has led to the escalation and radicalization of the conflict, making it even more destabilizing. •  Since 1967, Israeli settler movement Gush Emunim, encouraged by the governments, has committed to establishing Jewish settlements in OT, sometimes seizing land and property from Palestinians by force •  Violence provoked Palestinians, further increased Palestinian antagonism towards Israelis to the point that they resorted to retaliating with violence •  Lebanon invasion in 1982: massacred Palestinian refugees there à worldwide condemnation reflects that it was an unnecessary/unjustified act of aggression/provocation •  1987-1991 First Intifada direct result of Palestinian oppression in the OT à Palestinian masses including women and children engaged in mass civil disobedience, stone-throwing, Molotov cocktails, etc. •  Post Oslo, Israeli government abrogated the treaty, continued to encourage expansion of Jewish settlements •  Use of more violent and radical means represented a radicalization of the conflict hence escalating it and making it more difficult to resolve due to the intensification of hostilities

•  + AGGRESSIVE expansion of Jewish settlements in the OT made the creation of a contiguous viable Palestinian state even less likely à decreased resolvability of the AIC Argument 3 However, it can be argued that Israel was reacting defensively to Arab hostility and out of necessity to ensure state survival, especially before 1967, during which Arab states were the primary provocateurs of conflict. •  Arab states and Israel went to war in 1948 out of opposition to Israel’s right to exist and next over its support of Britain and France against Egypt during the Suez crisis •  Arab’s refusal to recognize the state of Israel and their perception of Israel as a defender of Western interests in the region à constant position of hostility for much of 1948-2000 •  Must recognize that Israel in 1967 was a pre-emptive strike!! Insecurity was provoked by Nasser’s decision to order UN troops out of Sinai and blocking Israeli trade shipping routes •  EVEN after 1967 when Pan-Arabism declined, Arab hostility maintained o  ‘3 Nos’ at 1967 Khartoum: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel o  Iran’s sponsoring of Hezbollah to undermine Israeli security o  Economic warfare à boycott of Israeli goods •  This added to Israeli insecurities, making it more difficult for Israel to compromise and provoking it to reciprocate hostility and violence à perpetuating and prolonging the conflict, making peace even less possible Argument 4 Israel’s aggressive stance and provocative actions were certainly also in response to Palestinian’s radical, uncompromising stance and approach which provoked Israeli insecurity •  Secular Palestinian groups like PLO, PFLP, Black September have been using violent means to advance their claim to a Palestinian state, provoking Israeli insecurity o  1965-6: Fatah (armed wing of PLO) conducted 76 terrorist raids against Israel o  1970 downing of El Al plane bound for Tel Aviv o  1972 Black September attacks – murdering Israeli athletes at Munich Olympics o  First intifada 1987 •  Post-1967, PLO approved the use of terrorism against Israel •  Non-recognition between Palestinians and Israelis was MUTUAL up till 1993 •  Post-Oslo, PLO equally responsible for exacerbating conflict because both sides abrogated treaty; Arafat and Fatah continued to agitate in OT for more territory •  Hamas which refused to negotiate with Israel and was not part of the 1993 Oslo accords continued to engage in violence in the OTs e.g. suicide bombings, street violence, culminating in the Second Intifada in 2000 Argument 5 Moreover, rather than due to Israeli provocation, the radicalization of the Arab Israeli Conflict was more a product of the much broader evolution in the Middle East leading to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism •  Conflict became more uncompromising and intractable since the 1980s, with the conflict being increasingly seen in religious terms instead of secular terms •  Due to the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism beginning with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which increased religious consciousness throughout the Muslim world à Palestinians began to define Israel in religious terms, saw themselves as being oppressed as Muslims

•  Led to the rise of jihad, which justified violent means à rise of militant Islamic groups e.g. Hamas established in 1987, conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks against Israel, Hezbollah executing cross-border attacks •  Violence has led to Israeli unwillingness to negotiate with Palestinians as it views them as terror groups •  Rather than Israel alone, these militants and their violent and radical approach to the conflict are also equally responsible for the intransigence and escalation of the conflict. Conclusion •  While Israel is partly responsible for the failure to peacefully resolve the conflict and hence its escalation and prolongation, blaming Israel alone oversimplifies the issue and completely sidesteps the role of Arabs and Palestinians whose responses continued to aggravate the conflict and fuel Israel’s insecurity. •  Whether it was more of the Israeli’s fault or the Arabs/Palestinian’s fault differed across time •  Pre-1967, Arab states were arguably more responsible than Israel being the provocateur of the 1948 and 1956 conflict •  Post-1967, with Israel in a position of power and regional dominance, it has been the aggressor and should be held more responsible for perpetuating the conflict Israel’s national security concerns have been the greatest stumbling block to peace. Assess the validity of this statement. Thesis •  While Israeli’s prioritizing of national security over peaceful resolution of conflict has contributed to the failure to obtain peace in the Middle East, these national security concerns were not completely unjustified and hence other actors, namely Arabs and Palestinians, were equally guilty for obstructing peace between both Arabs and Israelis and Israelis and Palestinians by similarly prioritizing their own security concerns over conflict resolution, and for continually provoking Israeli insecurity. Argument 1 Israel’s equation of national security wit