Political Science

Almost everyday newspapers carry news on the persisting problem of crisis in the Middle East and the violence associated with it. Despite the daily news clips and its continuing severity, very few people know about the real background of this conflict and very few credible resources are available, either on the print or electronic media which impartially records and analyses this ongoing war. The objective of this report is to briefly explain the history of this problem, analyze few peace initiatives which have been put forward over time and to give suggestions for the future course of action.

Background
The problem of Palestine is one of the longest running and most violent issues of modern times. According to the website of United Nations Department of Political Affairs, Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placedunder the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the Leagues Covenant.

During theyears of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration, mainly from Eastern Europe took place with numbers swelling in the 1930s during the Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. The Palestinians started resistance to Jewish immigration and this led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britainturned the problem over to the United Nations.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war, expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half of the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State, which did not come into being.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

According to the website of MidEastWeb organization, wars broke out in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, and there were many terror raids and Israeli reprisals. Each side believes different versions of the same history. Each side views the conflict as wholly the fault of the other and expects an apology. Israel has occupied the West bank and Gaza Strip (about 2,200 square miles) since the 1967,the 6-day war, and has built settlements with a population of about 220,000, mostly in the West Bank. Palestinians demand withdrawal from all of the land conquered in the 1967 andevacuation of the settlements. Israel continued to expand settlements throughout the peace process that began in 1993 and continues to do so today.

The same website claims that about 726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in 1948 in the war that followed the creation of Israel, and again in 1967 with the 6-day war. There are now about 4 million Palestinian refugees. Many of them live in crowded refugee camps in poor conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Palestinians demand that these refugees should have the right to return to their homes in Israel under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The Israelis, on the other hand, point out that an almost equal number of Jews fled Arab lands to Israel in 1948 therefore Israel wont consider a full right of return for Palestinians to Israel because this would be in direct contradiction to the idea of a two state solution, claims the Zionism  Israel Information Centre website. Benny Morris, in his landmark book, The Birth of Palestinian  Refugee Problem, presents a third hypothesis which says that although there were incidents in which all of these things have occurred the real cause of the refugee problem was an inevitable, unsought, result of war. In other words, no side and both sides are to blame.

Peace Proposals
Over the years various peace proposals have been formulated. Official peace plans include the quartet roadmap, and the Arab League initiative for Arab-Israeli peace. Various informal initiatives for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have also been proposed. The most popular is the Geneva Accord, under which Israel would return approximately the territories outside the current route of the security fence, and cede parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and Palestinian refugees would return to the Palestinian state, but not to Israel. The Ayalon Nusseibeh Agreement incorporates similar principles but is much less detailed. No informal accord has either been approved by Israeli or Palestinian governments.

Road Map
According to Ami Isseroffs commentary on the roadmap, the Bush administration floated the idea of a roadmap, a detailed and interlocked schedule of conditions and events that would break the Palestinian-Israeli impasse end the violence and lead to a peace settlement. The outlines of this idea were contained in a speech given by President Bush in 2002. The US undertook roadmap as a joint US and European initiative. Representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia formed a group known as the The Quartet, which began to shape international policy toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Quartet issued a statement regarding a road map for peace on September 17, 2002 that has since undergone several revisions. The program is an outline that is evolving over time.

According to the official roadmap document of May 2003, it is a performance-based and goal driven document, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties. The objective of the roadmap was final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005. It sought a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through an end to violence, when the Palestinian people have a democratically elected leadership.

In its first phase, the roadmap, sought to end terror and violence, normalize Palestinian life and building Palestinian institutions. The second phase focused on the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on the new constitution as a step towards full settlement. Phase three objectives were consolidation of reform and stabilization of Palestinian institutions, sustained, effective Palestinian security performance, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at a permanent status agreement by 2005.

According to an Israeli newspaper of March 17, 2003, senior Palestinian officials admitted that they have no choice but to express optimism about the road map for peace that was advocated by President Bush. But many Palestinians believe that the plan is really part of Bushs attempts to placate leaders in Europe and the Middle East on the eve of a war against Iraq (Haaretz). The Palestinian Authorities were also criticized for not implementing key provisions of the roadmap such as combating terror effectively, although they had originally accepted the roadmap. The Israeli government, on the other hand, accepted the roadmap, but with fourteen reservations but key undertakings were also not implemented, especially the freeze on settlement activity and removal of illegal outposts. According to the document of Israels response of the roadmap, following major conditions for progress to the second phase were set forth. It was demanded that the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure. All illegal weapons should be collected and transferred to a third party for the sake of being removed. Elections conducted for the Palestinian Legislative Council only after coordination with Israel. It was also demanded that the provisional Palestinian state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, it would be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, it would be without the authority to undertake defense alliances. And lastly, specific references must be made to Israels right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel. The document states that there shall be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement.

The Arab Peace Initiative
Political analyst Ami Isserof points that the Arab Peace Initiative was originally floated by Saudi crown prince Abdullah at the Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The original plan called for peace with Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from all territories.While the plan as adopted by the League called for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestine refugees to Israel in return for recognition of Israel and normal relations. The difference between the original and the adopted plan was that more emphasis was placed on the refugee issue.

The Arab peace initiative also required Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights and their return to Syria. The MidEastWeb claims that the United States was not interested in supporting any peace process with Syria as long as the Assad regime remained in place, and discouraged Israel from pursuing peace with Syria. It was not surprising that the United States, as well as Israel, were not enthusiastic about this initiative. Several key dignitaries, the king of Jordan and president of Egypt, did not attend the summit while Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat was prevented from attending by the Israeli government, therefore making the plan less credible. Israeli reaction to the plan was lukewarm. Beginning in 2006, the Arab peace initiative assumed new importance, as Arab states tried to get the Hamas government to agree to the initiative, which would grant legitimacy to Israel if it met Arab terms. The peace initiative became a marker for moderate Arab opinion, says the website.

The Geneva Accord
In 2003, Israeli opposition leaders, led by Yossi Beilin and Palestinians led by Yasser Abd-Rabbo, negotiated a draft agreement which is now known as the Geneva Accord. It stated that Palestinians will give up right of return of Palestinian refugees. While Israel gives up sovereignty over the Temple Mount and evacuates many settlements. Access to the Temple Mount would be regulated at the discretion of the Muslim committee. Israel gets to keep the Wailing Wall, the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus and the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem, as well as Maaleh Edumim and the Gush Etzion settlement block and settlements around East Jerusalem. The implementation of the accord would be overseen by an international committee, which would also ensure access to holy places,and security would be the responsibility of a multinational force, as stated by the document on Geneva Accord on the MidEastWeb.

Under the agreement about half of the 220,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have to evacuate their homes while the other half live in settlements that would be incorporated into Israel. The agreement makes no provisions whatever for Israeli Arabs living in portions of Jerusalem that will be given to the Palestinian authority. The Geneva Accord apparently intends to say that Palestinian refugees will be compensated and will be resettled in Palestine or other countries, with only a few coming to live in Israel. Some Palestinian negotiators immediately denied that the document gives up right of return. Eventually most Palestinian organizations condemned the Geneva Accord for giving up right of return. Israels government and the prime minister were quick to condemn the document. Yasser Arafat and the Fatah leadership cautiously welcomed the document. Jews objected to losing sovereignty over the temple mount and viewed it as excessive territorial concessions and ambiguous provisions regarding the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as pointed by Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers. Jews feared that if large numbers of refugees were allowed into Israel, they will constitute a majority because of higher Palestinian birth rate, and would put an end to Israel as a homeland as a Jewish people. Palestinian refugees, on the other hand, rejected the accord as they had to give up their right to return to their homes. Israeli Jews have also raised the issue of compensation for over 600,000 Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries and lost their property when the State of Israel was created. The Israeli government slammed the accords because they conceded much more than the government is willing to concede, and because they attempted to leapfrog the roadmap process,which was not supposed to discuss final status until a much later phase, says the document.

The Road Ahead
The true solution to the Palestinian refugee problem seems like an academic debate as no side is simply willing to give any room to the other. Israel has no motivation to push for peace as it has the upper hand in this conflict. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have nothing to lose, as anything gained in the process will be termed as progress. And as the time progresses, only one logical conclusion come to mind that Israel will slowly occupy all the territory and the water resources while the future generations of Palestinians will either be assimilated in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. It almost seems that only divine intervention in the holy land can break the current impasse.

Of the three peace proposals, the Road Map seems to be more objective and relevant specifically to the cause of refugees. It happens to be the most recent peace initiative which had the backing of United States, European Union (EU), United Nations and Russia or the Quartet as it became known. The Palestinians and Israelis also accepted the proposals albeit with major reservations. By dividing the proposals into clear cut phases it had a built in evaluation mechanism but instead of giving time lines performance should be the sole condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases, as pointed out by the Israelis in their response.

But all this does not means that only the Road Map peace proposals should be followed, going forward. First of all, common areas should be sought out in light of the previously signed accords and only those proposals should be put forth where there was no opposition from the either side.  In this way significant public approval can be gained. Israel should be made to comply with the agreement and its outlandish demands should be rejected. Continuous building of settlements on occupied territories has to be stopped immediately. Palestinian Authorities, on the other hand, have to empowered in order for them to function freely and to help de-escalate the cycle of violence spread by extremist organizations.
Also, in order to make the Israelis buy any peace measures in the future, specific incentive package has to be devised which should take into consideration Israels economic, social and security needs. Unless and until Israel is not compelled or coaxed, the road map for the future of Palestinian state looks bleak.
Unless and until the quartet does not put forth a serious and concerted effort this conflict is all set to linger on. Only when an equitable and just solution is put forth whereby the Palestinians are given their due share, will this peace process be deemed as a success.

There is also a strong need for people to people consensus on the future peace initiatives. Previously, almost all the accords were either put forward by various leaders but in the future, for any peace accord to be successful it has to be owned by the people. Therefore, a larger role is required for the non-government organizations both on local and international levels.

One more aspect has to be considered here, the Palestinian refugees have suffered since decades in refugee camps. Poverty and illiteracy has bred haltered against the Israelis and violent movements keep emerging from these camps. In order for any peace initiative to function in the future, economic stability and quality education have to be provided to these refugees. Israels demand for an immediate end to violent groups cannot be met by the Palestinian authorities simply because a weak authority cannot prevail over terror. This is an issue which will not go away in a couple of years as generations have lived and perished in this environment of hate and mistrust.

Moreover, as a prelude to peace, United Nations observers should be deployed along the Palestinian-Israeli border to monitor the cross border violations this step has long been resisted by the Israelis.
Now time is running out for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. While Israel keeps on suppressing Palestinians, the radical Muslim world deems this conflict as a religious war or jihad, whereby inciting more hatred amongst the faithful in order to pursue their own agendas.