"Those who do not learn history
are doomed to repeat it."
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has
been going strong since at least 1947. There are occasional lulls
but no resolution. The problems seem too deep-seated and the
respective positions too entrenched. Everyone deplores the deaths of
innocent Palestinians and Israelis alike. Still the killing goes on
and on. It is, in every sense of the word, a tragedy of human making
and monumental proportions.
It is easy for us who are far from the
conflict both in miles and in understanding to offer simple solutions
and express surprise and disgust that the killing just seems to go on
and on.
In Britain the populace seems more and
more to be “on the side” of the Palestinians. This is an
inevitable consequence of the overwhelming superiority in weaponry
that the Israelis can bring to the conflict. Many hundreds of
innocent Palestinians are lost for every Israeli. It's not
surprising that the sympathies of the British people are with the
underdogs.
Unfortunately, this posturing from a
long way away is not likely to produce any reduction in either the
government's support for Israel or its exasperation for the lack of
progress towards a real peace agreement.
A short history lesson for those who
may need it. Notwithstanding Richard I and Saladin, the first modern
involvement in this part of the Middle East was the Balfour
Declaration of 2 November 1917.
“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 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."
Following WWI Britain was effectively
the government of Palestine under a mandate from the League of
Nations.
After WWII the pressure to allow Jewish
immigration into Palestine was almost insurmountable – owing in
large part to the discovery of the Nazi death camps. Still Britain
tried to keep an even-handed approach and keep both Jews and
Palestinian Arabs on side. This tactic failed miserably.
"Between
November 29th 1947 and June 1948, 214 British servicemen lost their
lives, including the 28 killed when the Stern Gang blew up the
Khantara to Haifa Express at Rehovoth on February 29th 1948."
Many other British forces died in
trying to administer Palestine.
Finally the UN decided to act:
“The United Nations Partition Plan
for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which
recommended a partition with Economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to
follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947,
the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the
adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181.
The resolution recommended the creation
of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International
Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part
document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of
the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and
the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.
Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as
soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than
1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months
after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan
sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two
competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish
nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for
Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of
religious and minority rights.
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish
public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its
perceived limitations. With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and
governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and
indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial
division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of
national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people
the right to decide their own destiny.
Immediately after adoption of the
Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out. The
partition plan was not implemented.
By now it should be clear that neither
Israel of the Palestinian Arabs were all that interested in a
peaceful solution to the problem. Neither are they to this day.
For Israel's part they believed that
the Arab leadership at the time of independence was unable or
unwilling to negotiate with the new Jewish state as the Palestinians
were expecting the surrounding Arab nations to overwhelm Israel. So,
when they left their homes for Syria, Egypt or Jordan they thought
they would soon be back in triumph.
The Palestinian leadership, such as it
existed, simply looked at the map and the promises of their Arab
friends and saw no reason to come to any accommodation.
That's just about where we are today.
Neither side neither trusts each other nor seeks a real peace. And
the deaths continue to mount up.
There are interesting parallels with
the conflict in Northern Ireland. Both problems go back many, many
years – centuries really. Both have a religious element at the
core. Both feature seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Both have
many people on both sides who have a stored up hatred of the other
side and a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for death and
destruction. The list goes on.
Yet eventually a solution was found.
The controlling feature in each case
seems to be the attitude of the American government.
When influential politicians in the US
began to see that no progress could be made if they maintained (even
tacitly) their support for the IRA, the writing was on the wall.
When influential politicians in the US
begin to see that almost unqualified support for Israel will not
bring about a resolution, some progress might be possible.
What would a real peace plan look like?
Israel would abandon parts of the West
Bank to a new Palestinian state.
The Palestinians would recognise the
state of Israel and stop war-like action against it.
Israel would abandon the siege of Gaza.
The Palestinians would abandon historic
claims to land, and property lost after 1948.
This would be a good start.
Likely to happen? I fear not. More
likely is more killing, grief and pain for the citizens of both side.
No comments:
Post a Comment