Palestine/Israeli Conflict - Part 2

Prep yourselves, folks. This is going to be a long one.

After some research (I was actually considering use the expression "much research" but I figure to comfortably use such, I would have to read a few books on the issues as opposed to a few articles on Wikipedia), I have come to some level of conclusion on a very convoluted topic. My opinion can be revealed by asking and answering a few basic questions.

Q: Which side is to blame for how this all STARTED?

A: I dare say the blame is almost 50/50 on each side, but I will give it a 65/35 with the 65 going to the Israelis.

Q: Which side is the PRIMARY CURRENT obstacle to a peace agreement?

A: The Palestinians – but it is somewhat understandable.

Q: Is the American response in the situation thus far justified?

A: To an extent – but it is somewhat hypocritical.

And now having given my two minute soundbite as a pundit, let me give you the analysis this was based on. And it is based on the history of it all.

Trinidad is a former colony of a European country (Britain, to be precise – hence my writing using the Queen's English). The same was true for most of the middle east. In 1917, Britain successfully fought the Ottoman empire for control over Palestine. When the British Mandate over Palestine was enacted in 1922, the population of Palestine was predominantly Muslim and Arab, with only 11% being Jewish.

So let's pause a moment for us all to be clear here. In 1922, there was no state of Israel, and Palestine was a predominantly Arab/Muslim nation. Jews were floating all over the world at that point, and were constantly being persecuted. For these very earthly and also for non-earthly (i.e. Biblical) reasons, Jews always longed for their own state, and what better place to call home than the land which holds Jerusalem – their most holy of cities. Even prior to 1922, Jews often migrated to the Palestine region, mainly for religious reasons, though usually in smaller groups. But then there became a growing political/secular movement of people wishing to migrate to Palestine in the hopes of establishing, at the very least, a Jewish community. This migration became stronger and stronger with the growth of Naziism, culminating in WWII which chased even more Jews, many of whom chose the state of Palestine to escape persecution. By the end the war, the Jewish population had risen to 33% of the population – essentially it had tripled in less than a generation.

Of course the Muslims/Arabs did not see this massive influx and simply kept their mouths shut. Over the course of 3 years – 1936 to 1939, there were at least two distinct revolts against the British colonial rule as well as the mass influx of Jewish migrants. Because of these revolts, the Brits tried to come to a solution – proposing the "two state" solution for the first time (refer to the Peel Commission). They suggested that Palestine be split between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Arabs getting more of the land (although a portion of it was an economically undeveloped and infertile desert). The establishment of these states would also possibly result in the "compulsory" transfer of population that would unsettle about 250,000 Arabs and about 1,250 Jews. The Arabs were completely against it while the Jews, though divided, were a bit more in favour of the plan.

Let's pause for a moment again here and understand this situation. Try to put yourself in an Arab's sandals. Too hard? Come on. Give it a shot. You're an Arab, living in Palestine under Ottoman control. Life isn't too difficult – you get to practice your religion and what not. In comes Britain, they overthrow the Ottoman Empire and take control of Palestine. Life still does not change too much, except that you start noticing that your Jewish neighbours – once a small minority – is starting to grow. And grow. And grow. And grow still. There is a massive influx of people to your country – and they are mainly Jews. And they are coming here to stay. Now most countries nowadays have serious restrictions on massive influxes of any portion of a populace into its borders – short of refugees in which case TEMPORARY refugee camps are set up.

But no. You do not rule your country – the Brits do – and you are therefore powerless to stymy the suddenly shifting demographic of your country. PERMANENT shifting. So you revolt – you tell the government:

Arabs: "What the hell, Brits?! You're a foreign country occupying my homeland and you're letting HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of these foreigners set up shop in my country? It doesn't even feel like MY country anymore."

And then to validate your last claim – that this isn't your country anymore – the Brits respond by saying...

Brits: "Okay cool. We hear your concerns due to your rioting. We will attempt to resolve by giving these foreigners setting up shop in Your Homeland part of Your Homeland to call Their Homeland and giving you your Part of Your Homeland. Oh yeah, and I noticed your neighbourhhood – which a decade ago was primarily Arab – is now predominantly Jewish, so this will form part of the Their Homeland... Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."

And the Jews will say:

Jews: "Man. I've been persecuted all over the world. I've fled here just hoping to be accepted for what I am and not be persecuted" (all entirely understandable). "But after having nowhere to call my own, Brits are gonna give me almost half of this Arab territory they conquered? Fucking awesome!"

So of course the Arabs will say no. They are essentially going from their homeland which had a history of being unified under foreign control to getting half of their homeland under their control. And of course the Jews will say yes. They are finally getting land to call their own – albeit wrung from the hands of Palestinian Arabs while all other Arab nations who were at the time gaining FULL independence of THEIR ENTIRE TERRITORIES from Europe. All because a few hundred thousand Jews migrated to Palestine in the 25 or so years it was under English control.

To be fair, the alternatives would have been to either:

1. Oust most of the Jewish residents to return Palestine to some semblance of its ethnic/religious mix of 1922 – something that is extremely unrealistic
2. Propose a one state solution – which might have been a viable option, but with the Arab population already attacking many Jewish settlements within Palestine, there would have been a long civil war before things calmed down

The best thing would have been to prevent this situation from ever happening – i.e. there should have been restrictions on such a massive inflow of people into Palestine – be they Jews or otherwise. Any country which is subject to such a massive change in demographic in such a short period of time is just a seed of social turmoil waiting to grow into a massive, bloody, disgustingly- difficult-to-axe tree. But that didn't happen. So we move on.

Where are we? Right. The demographic of Palestine has shifted. Britain is seeking a two-state solution and failing miserably. Enter now Britain announcing that they are going to relinquish control of the Palestine mandate in the coming future. Now a peace deal HAS to be brokered – lest a Vacuum Of Soverignity (VOS) be created in that region where there is territory (Palestine) which is occupied by several peoples but controlled by no one.

By this time, there were several independent Arab nations, all of whom (together the Arab league), had a vested and legitimate interest in Palestine. Why? Because it was Arab? Yes – but it is a bit deeper than that. See that war in 1917 that allowed the Brits to gain control over Palestine? Well, they were successful in this war, as well as all of their engagements throughout the middle east which were under Ottoman control due to the assistance of the Arabs. This assistance was won through promises to establish a single unified Arab State across the Middle East, and which included Palestine.

Well that changes the dynamic doesn't it? So here you are, an Arab. Promised your own state after British invasion, only to get half of it after a whole bunch of foreigners (Jews) "show up".

There were several attempts at a two-state solution, all of which were rejected by the Arab League while being accepted, at least mostly, by the Jewish settlers. And per above, we can understand why that will be. So in this case, there are two opposing sides – the Arab Leage and the Jewish settlers. There is the mediator – the Brits and eventually, when the Brits gave up, the United Nations. They cannot reach a deal over a Jewish/Palestinian state. The date that the British Mandate is set to end looms near. The most recent plan was rejected by the Arab League but accepted by the Jewish settlers. In frustration, Arab bands begin to attack Jewish targets. The Jews defend themselves, then they get on the offensive and the first in a wave of skirmishes between Jews and Arabs begin, resulting in the collapse of the Arab Palestinian economy and the fleeing/expulsion of a quarter of a million Arabs from Palestine. And the date looms nearer still, no agreement in sight. What happens just the day before the Mandate is set to end?

The Jewish settlements declare themselves an independent state called "Israel" in line, more or less, with the borders of the most recently offered (but not accepted by both parties) agreement. Immediately, they are attacked by members of the Arab league who deny this "Israel" the right to exist. The Arab countries are soon defeated, but before this happens, during the war and therafter,there is a massive migration (approximately 700,000) of Palestinian Arabs. As is usually the case, the middle class and up escape to other countries and re-establish themselves. The poor on the otherhand, flee to the portions of Palestine not under this new territory of Israel – the West Bank and Gaza strip in particular where they live in refugee camps. And this is where now they, and their descendants – estimated at just shy of 5 million people, reside. Once they had homes in a homeland, now they have shanty towns in a city born of refugee camps. Mere months after their declaration of statehood, Israel is accepted as an independent state by the United Nations. Meanwhile, the rest of Palestine (now a mixture of homes and refugee camps for the displaced) is sucked into the expected Vacuum of Soverignity (VOS) as there is no SINGLE party OFFICIALLY in control of its constantly shifting boundaries.

Whoa whoa whoa. Let's pause a moment here so I can start cycling things back to the questions I originally asked and answered of myself.

Q: Which side is to blame for how this all STARTED?

1. The Jews, in small part (say 5%), because they moved, in droves, into a country that was not theirs, shifting demographics significantly to the dismay of the existing populace. Of course this is not their fault; they were fleeing persecution, and of course, as individuals, they will move to the country that they consider a religious "Zion" to them, as well as a country where most of the other people such as themselves were going. They could not have been expected to anticipate the response or the hardships they were placing on other peoples.
2. The Arabs, in some part (say 35%), because they were resisting every reasonable attempt at a solution. Granted, they were upset that the Brits seemed to be going against an agreement of a unified Arab State and also that a massive inflow of Jews had not been stymied by the ruling Brits. But short of expelling Jews to goodness knows where and avoiding all-out civil war, what were the options? They needed to accept that this was the situation on the ground, and this was one of the better solutions for it.
3. The Jews, in large part (the remaining 60%), for establishing a nation before reaching an agreement with its neighbours, thereby implying that it could not be trusted, and causing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homelands into slums.

Q: Which side is side is the PRIMARY CURRENT obstacle to a peace agreement?

Right now, neither side trusts the other. The Palestinians and their sympathisers believe that the Jews don't want a two nation state. They think the Jews want ongoing "negotiations" while they continually build settlements on disputed lands, hoping to draw out the "negotiations" as long as possible so that any final agreement will be in their favour (as much land staying with Israel) as far as possible. I actually believed that too. Now, not so much. The Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, who they insist will use their sovereignity to seek help to wipe Israel off the map because they do not believe it has the "right to exist".

I think each side has some truth to their claims, but having considered the story, I think that the Jews's version is a bit more credible. Why? Simple. The Palestinians and Arabs hate the Jews far more than the Jews hate the Palestinians and Arabs. And it all has to do with this "right to exist". I always thought the term related to people who thought that Israel should be "wiped off of the face of the earth" Ahmadinejad style. Now I understand that this is not it – at least mostly not it. People who deny Israel's right to exist do not necessarily (although they probably do a little) want to drop a bomb on Israel and reclaim the land. What they are saying is that Israel's declaration of independence was not valid as there was no mutual agreement by its neighbours – the Arab League. To recognise Israel, to them, was tantamount to accepting that Israel's unilateral declaration was valid and therefore the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and their ensuing ongoing misery was justifiable. And that is something that a lot of Palestinians and Arabs are just plain unwilling to do.

As a result, even though at least half of Palestine (through the PLO) acknowledge Israel and wish to have a two-state solution, one has to wonder how much they really consider Israel as a legitimate state. This is a Palestine that has suffered because foreigners (Jews) took up residence in their land and called it their own, displacing those who always lived there and forcing them into shanty-town type atmospheres controlled by organisations that are not internationally recognised (i.e. no UN membership). And that's not counting the half controlled by Hamas.

The Palestinians hate the Jews. And with the cycle of poverty feeding that hate and feeding the poverty (rinse, wash, repeat), it is unlikely that the Palestinians will form a cohesive, reasonable and practical response to their situation. All understable – they got the shitty end of the stick, but they are so pissed off that they are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that a shitty stick is better than no stick at all.

Q: Is the American response in the situation thus far justified?

With their significant Jewish interest, I would expect that they will support the Jews in fighting against a Palestinian state. And given that the Jews' grounds for such is relatively valid, America's support is valid by extension. On the other hand, denying funding to a body as important to SEVERAL nations as UNESCO for the sake of one nation who has been seen to defend itself very well, I think is more than a little appalling. Then again, it is written into their legislation to do such to any organisation which recognises Palestine as an independent state.

As for the hypocrisy – America keeps saying that declaring an independent state prior to the establishment of a peace deal compromises the negotiations to achieve such a deal. I completely agree. Now why the fuck didn't America or any of the other nations at the UN make the same argument when Israel declared itself a nation before reaching a deal with the Arab League over any such territory in Palestine? What Palestine is doing to gain statehood is a weak mirror of what Israel did – ignore the fact that there was no deal and declare itself independent.

You might argue that subsequent to Israel declaring itself independent, the only skirmishes in which it partook arose from it defending its borders while slowly expanding outwards. On the otherhand, an independent Palestine may involve an out-right attacks of Israel. "Possible", but any such attacks will be born out of an understandable hate for a nation that it considers having stolen and illegally occupied its lands. While Israel's declaration of independence definitely strengthened its standing in the Middle East (with the UN support and all), it also steeled the anger of a population – the Palestines – against it. That kind of hatred lasts through generations, as each generation grows up under a new cycle of poverty and restriction, it looks to the area held by the rich Israelis who move about as they please – an area that the older folks constantly point to in hatred and disgust – and they find something to blame. Something to fight against.

Q: What are my final thoughts?

A: I thought that the PLO's bid for statehood may mean that within a few years, even with America blockading, I might see a legitimate Palestinian state. Now, I'm not so sure. It will happen eventually, but with that kind of tension still lingering among a populace, it will take a far more united and seemingly "moderate" Palestine who are willing to "knuckle under" and admit their weakness to the strong and unrelenting Israel, to broker a peace deal and roadmap to a Palestinian state almost entirely on Israeli terms.

And that's my 2 cents. What with inflation, it's probably worth a cent and a half. But hey – like the Palestinians wouldn't say – better a piece than nothing at all.