Perhaps no issue appears as vexatious as the ongoing Palestine-Israeli conflict that threatens to deepen the ‘fault lines’ between the West and the Arabs. This age old problem is rooted in a historicity of ancient times, false promises, realpolitik and religion. The complexity of the issue suspends the commonly held perceptions of ‘right’ and’ wrong’ and this essay attempts to examine what could be the ‘Right’ side of the conflict.
The Arabs have claimed that historically speaking there had always been a state of Palestine, which the past colonial masters, the British had promised to restore to the Arabs as per the tenets of the Balfour declaration of 1917 which stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (Encyclopædia Britannica). The Arabs further argued that Jews never had any claim to the lands of Palestine and thus their forceful conquest of Palestine to create Israel was a conspiracy of the Christian world to drive a wedge amidst Muslim lands for the purposes of geo-politics and geo-strategy. This ploy was proved by the fact that “The League of Nations awarded Palestine as a mandate to the United Kingdom under terms that explicitly called for the establishment of a Jewish national home but required no consultation with the people of Palestine” (Mead 2). The Palestinian Arabs very rightly point out that to date the Palestinians are a refugee in their own homeland and thus by all tenets of International Law are a ‘people under occupation’.
The Jews on the other hand lay their claim to the present boundaries of Israel as a vindication of the biblical promise of the children of Israel who had been expelled from:
‘The Promised Land’ and had only returned to make their rightful claim. The Israelis claim that irrespective of the historicity, the present state of Israel is a reality, a country that has official recognition under the UN charter and thus cannot be denied by the Arab countries. The Israelis also state that the constant existential threat posed to them by the surrounding Arab states and the overt and covert help to Palestinian extremist groups by Iran makes them contemplate every action under the universal right to self defense.
Undoubtedly both sides have their valid reasons and grievances. However, there are certain hard facts that both parties will have to face if there is to be a settlement. The Israelis will have to accept the legitimate rights of Palestinians and initiate the various peace formulations steered by the US for peaceful coexistence of a Palestinian state side by side Israel. They would need to keep their extreme right wing under check and desist from building new Jewish settlements in contentious neighborhoods. The Palestinians on their part need to give up their unreasonable demands typified by the extremist ideology of Hamas that calls for a total destruction of the Israeli state. The solution according to Scowcroft and Brzezinski “should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a non-militarized Palestinian state” (para 7).
Works Cited
“Balfour Declaration.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web.
Mead, Walter Russell. “Change They Can Believe In: To Make Israel Safe, Give Palestinians Their Due.” 2009. Web.
Scowcroft, Brent and Zbigniew Brzezinski. “Middle East Priorities For Jan. 21.” 2008. Washington Post. Web.