Figure 1.-- |
|
Tragically the Isreali-Psalestinian conflict has continued into the 21st. President Clinton made a major effort to reslove the conflict (2000). His effort has been much-criticized, but it was aserious effort. Primeminister Barak grugingly made major concessions. Chair Arafat refused to do so, probably accurately gudeging Palestinian public opinion. Since the Camp David talks hosted by President Clinton, the situation has deteriorated. The Palestinians launched a new Interfada. This has undermined the fragile Palestinian economy. Israel concluding that there was no real partner for peace has attempted to withdraw, bith from Lebanon (200?) and Gaza (200?), but the Hesbolah militia in Lebanon armed by the Iranians and the Palestinians in Gaza have still launched attacks across the border. Palestinian suiside attacks have led to the Isreali contruction of a wall in the West Bank. Fatah's commitment to the peace process. Hamas rejects the peace process, although when speaking to the Western media is often ambigious. The rise of Islamic militancy has resulted in Hamas challenging Fatah for control of the Palestinian Authority. Hebolah attacks accross the border caused a costly war (2006). The rivalry between Fatah and Hamas has led to armed clashes beginning to take the chracter of a civil war, causing further suffering among the Palestinian people.
President Clinto brought PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Isreali Primier Ehud Barak together at Camp David to reach a final resollution of the issues set in motion by the Oslo Peace Process. The negotiations were protracted and contentious. President Clinton did a comendable job of keeping the negotiations going and wringing concessions from both sides. Considerable controversy exists over what the final Isreali offer was to the Palestinians. The offer is, however, a matter of clear historical record. [Ross] One can argue the value of the accord hammered out and wether is was a fair and just resolution, but the details are a matter of public record. The Palestinians can argue that the Isreali offer was not adequate. They can not, however not argue that the Isrealis did not make substantial concessions and meet many of their legitimate demands. Israel offered Arafat 94-96 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Israel would ceed 1-3 percent of its territory to the Palestinians. [Clinton, p. 936.] Thus the Palestinians were essentially offered 97 percent of the West Bank. This is a matter of historical record. Individuals who deny that Israel offered the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank are either in error or dishonest. The areas retained by the Isrealis contained 80 percent of the Jewish population in the East Bank. The Arab neigborhoods of Jeruselum would be incorprated into the new Palestinian state, this included parts of the Old City. This both states could claim Jersuselum as their capital. The Palestinians were given soverignity over the Temple Mount/Haram and the Isrealis soverignity over the Western Wall. There was to be no excavations without mutual consent. There were a variety of arrangements governing Isreali withdrawl from the West Bank and provisions to satisfy Isreali security concerns. The right of return was to be limited to the new Palestinian state, although it was understood that Israel would except small numbers of Palestinians, especially from the refugees in Lerbanon. [Clinton, p. 937.] There was to be a major international effort to help resettle the refugees. A international aid package ofg about $30 billion was discussed. [Ross] Yasser Arafat's rejection of the Israeli peace offer led to a new Interfada, disastrous for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. Arafat has widely been blamed for the failure of the talks and the violence that followed. His moytives are not known. Some believe that he calculated that a brief resumption of violence would improve his baragaining position. He may have also believed that he could had got a better deal with Bush. What ever his reasons, the violence quickly spiraled beyond his control. This may be the case. It also may be the case that he believed that signing the agreement would be like signing his death warrant. Other Arab leaders attempting to makes peace with Israel were assasinated (Jordanian King Abdullah and Egyptian President Sadat). It may also be the case that the Palestinian people are simply not ready for peace.
The right of return is one of the most difficult issues in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. One of the principle reasons that Arafat decided not to sign the Camp David accord was that it rfused to permit the right of retrurn of Palestinians refugees (now mostly the descendents of refugeees) to Israel. Here a lot of misleading retoric is often used. Palestinian spokesmen speaking in English often say they accept a two state sollution and recognize Israel's right to exist. One especially effectiive Palestinian spokespetrson is Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. Like many Palestinian spokespersons she criticses the 2000 Camp David accord. One of her principle objections is the failure to accomodate the right of return. Of course as a Palestinian spokespersons she has every right to advance the interests of her people. And her position accurately reflects the sentiment among most Palestinians. What is not legitimate, however, is to claim to recognize Israel's right to exist and then insist on the right of return. The two are mutually inconsistent and Dr. Ashrawi. The position makes for effective propaganda. It dies not, however, offer any hope of resolving the conflict. It also leads one to seriously question if Palestinian leaders have any interest in a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Another issue concerning the right of return is that the discussion usually focuses only on Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees arre also ignored as if they did not exist.
President Truman decided to vote for he recognition of israel in 1948, but American support was for years limited. Isreel's support came from America's Jews. This was a relatively small part of the population and declining as a proprtion of the population. The rise of the religious right in America, profoundly changed America's relationship with Israel. Some how Fundamentalists which had once been influenced by ant-Semitism became string supporters od Israel. As a result, President Bush has made the stringest statements in support of Isreal of any american preident.
An unusual aspect of the current Isreali-Palestinian conflict is that children (Arab and Jewish) are not only the victims of the conflict, but they are also participating in the violence. We have all seen the images of rock-throwing Palestinian boys, some as little as 6 years old. Palestinian youth have carried out suicide bombing attacks killing Isrealis of all ages. We wonder about who these suiside bombers are what motivates them to kill civilians including childre. One of the best recent journalist accounts has insights on this difficult topic. [Hammer] Americans watchinging a steady stream of Palestinian suiside attacks and Isareli reprisals, despair of a sollution. Not all obrvers are as pessamistic. One observer believes that demographic trends strongly push Isreal to withdrw from the Wwest Bank, otherwise Jew would find themselves a minority in their own country. [Wasserstein] The Jewish settlers on the West Bank are often portrayed as religious zealots seeking anexation of the West Bank and a substantial threat to the peace process. They may well be less of a threat than believed. One observer believes that the attractiin of cheap rents may be more important than religious zealotry. [Wasserstein] Other observers after the bloodleating of the Iterfada is deeply pessimistic. He believes that it clearly shows that the Palestinians have not accepted either Israel or the peace process. He fears it is just a matter of time before the Palestinians make the transition from suiside bombings to weapons of mass destruction. [Hertzberg] One positive aspect of the struggle is that it has been a largely secular conflict of copeting nationalism. If religious zealtory enters the picture, than the conflict could be come even worse. [Hertzberg]
There are Palestinian communities in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These areas wereoccupied by Israel during the 6 Days War. These communities as a result of the Oslo Peace Process are self governing under the Palestinian Authority. There was great hope for the Palestinians as a result of the Oslo Agreements. There was general hope that this would lead to a two-state sollution and an indepndent and properous Psalestine. Little political process was made. Analysts dispute who was responsible for this. Living conditions have declined disatrously, especially since the Interfada. This means essentially that living conditions were substatially higher during Isreali occupation. Many issues concerning the Isreali-Palestinian issue are in dispute. The decline in living standards is an undisputable fact. There are also Palestinian communities spread throughout the Arab world. These are largely the descents of the refugees from the 1948 War. The size of these communities vary from country to country as well as ntional law and policies which affect the refugee population.
Isareli society is quite complex, consisting of many national and relogious communities. There are many different Jeish groups, often assoiciated with religious and immigrant factors. Some of the most important are: Ashkenazim, Mizahim, immigrants (especially Russian and Ethiopian), Haredim, religious-Zionsts, and secular Jews. There are are also wide religious differences. There is also a substantial Arab population, including Muslims, Druze, and Christians. Perhaps the greast danger to the Israeli Airforce today is that Israel is a bottle neck in the bird mifrations between Europe and asia and africa. One key institution in the socilization process is the Army. [Rosenthal] Israel is virtually the only democratic state in the Middle East. Ironiclly it is one of the few states in which Palestinians or for that matter Muslims can vote in open democtatic elections. Readers have complained to us that Israel is an Aparthaid state in which Palestinians are oppressed and have no legal rights. Thus we have decided to look a modern Israel, the various ethnic and religious communities, the political, legal, and social system. Of course this is a major undertaking and will take some time. Here we encourage reders to add what ever insights they may have.
The IDF actions at Jenin and Nablus during 2002 must be viewed in the larger context of the Interfada. Palestinians charge that IDF actions in Jenna and Nabblus surin 2002 were examples of Isreali genocide aimed at the Palestinian people. The Isrealis maintain that the action was necesitated by Paestinian suiside attacks against Isreali citizens.
The Holocaust in recent years has become an issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are several aspects to this. The two most important are holocausr denial and holocaust inversion. It is difficult to understand how any one can seriously deny the NAZI Holocaust of the Jews given the overwealming body of evidence, but some Muslims do, especially the Arabs and the Iranians. The Iranians even held an international conference on the Holocaust to which prominent Holocaust deniers were invited. What appears to be at play here is the Arabs onject to anything that might create sympathy for the Jews. Ironically while many Arabs deny the Holocaust, at the samr=e time they have begun to claim that the Isrealis are carrying out a Holocaust of the Palestinians. This is called Holocaust inversion. There are two other Holocaust threads. One is that the Palestinians should not have to pay for the Holocaust conducted by Germans and other Eropeans. And that the Europeamn Jews fleeing European anti-Semitism is an esentially colonial intervention into the Middle East.
The Israeli Army pulled out from Lebanon in 2000. Isreal pulled back to a border recognized by U.N. Resolution 1559. The Shite Hezbollah militia used this as an opportunity to improve its fire power and fortify the border with Israel. For 6 years heabily financed by Iran, Hezbollah builtup a huge stock pile of rockets and even a smaller number of more accurate missles. During this period Israel focused on the severe security problems posed from Palestinian suicide bombings. Hezbollah to support the Hamas militia in Gaza carried out a cross-border raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others. Israel in resonse launched a fierce assault, ttempting to target Hezbollah. This proved difficult because Hezbollah is a non-uniformed civilian militia which has military facilities in civilian areas. In the 34-day war that followed, 120 Israeli soldiers and 39 civilians were killed. There were 854 Lebanese killed. Press reports generally refer to them as civilians.
There is no doubt that many were, but as Hezbollah is a non-uniformed group commonly deployed in civilian areas, there is no way of knowing how many of the casualties were truly "innocent" civilians. Israel also did great damage to the infrastructure of southern Lebanon. Critics generally claim thast Israel used disproportinate force, but fail to offer any alternative method of preventing Hezbollah from brining in rockets to fire on Isreali cities. At this time it is unclear just how extensively Israel damaged Hezbollah or how effective the international force now deploying in southern Lebanon will be.
The Isreali-Palestinian conflict is one of the most, if not the most contentious conflict of modern times. This is in part because both peoples can claim a stake in the land. Of course it is debateable as to the strength of each claim. Of course there are partisans on both sides, but the point is that it is debateable. The job of the historian is to collect, organize, and evaluate facts. As we know, a range of conclusions can be drawn from any given set of facts and authors vary as to the facts they collect and consider important. And of course some authors only collect those facts that butress their point of view. The problem with the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is even more difficult than that. The issue is so incendiary that some authors actually make up what they claim to be facts as well as quotations. Here the Muslim world is particularly likely to do this because of limitations on scholarship. Muslim scholars that dare to diverge from accepted views are quite litwraly putting their lives in danger. While no mater how outrageous the attacks on Jews, there are no adverse consequences. Poor scholaership is not, however, limited to Muslims. We note dishonest scholarship in the West as well, most commonly on this issue among left-wing writers. We mention this because readers who would want to seriously address this subject need to look carefully at the sources of articles they read to make sure they are based on sound scholarship. We will post some examples of poor scholarship as an example of the difficulties of resaerching this topic.
The political left is among the most vociferous critics of Israel. This seema at first difficult to understand, especially because the Palestinain movement is increasingly becoming dominated by Muslim extremists. And Muslim extremists are intolerant toward secular political movements, including Socialists and Communists. The initial Paestinian movement was religious in nature, launched by the Grand Mufti. But then the fight against Israel was taken over by Arab Socialists led by leaders like Nasser. Here leftist support of Palestinians was understandable because Nasser was backed by the Soviet Union was the struggle portrayed as part of the anti-colonial effort. Arab Socialism was a failure for a range of political, economic, and social reasons. The situation today in the arab world is quite different. Socialism has lost its cachet and many young Muslims are turning to religious fanatics. Ironically the only plave in the Middle East that left-wing authors could live and publish is Israel. Left wing authors tend to be very critical of religion, especially Christianity and Judiasm. There criticism of Islam is often much more muted. Not only do Islamic countries not permit left-wing authors who question Islam to publish, but they would be putting their lives in fanger to do so. Thus the question becomes, why is the left so soft on Islam in general and specifically why has it fallen so decisively on the Palestinian side of the Isreali-Palestinian issue.
Civilians have been a major issue in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict from the very beginning. Even before Isreal was created, civilians were targeted. Arab rioting and acts of violence fomented by the Grand Mufti targeted Jewish settlers. During the First Arab-Isreali War the two sides were realatively balanced. Many Palestinians fled the fighting. The Arabs now maintain that they were driven from their homes by Jewish violence. There were attacks on civilians, by both Arabs abnd Jews. Isrealis also point out that Arab radio broadcasts encouraged Palestinians to evacuate so that Isrealis could be more effectiveky targeted. Gradually the ballance of power shifted so that Isreali became a modern miliyary force confronting less effective Arab milutary forces and more recently Palestinian irregular forces operaring from civilian areas. The Geneva Conventions require military forces to avoid causing civilian casualties. This does not mean, however, that soldiers do not have a right to react to attacks by civilians. And military forces and irregular are prohibited by the Geneva Convention of using civilians as human shields. Considerable controversy exists concering Isreli policy as to limiting civilian casualties in its military operations. It is clear, however, that the Isrealis do place limits on its military. Observers can debate whether those limits are adequate, but there are undeniably limits. Arab irregulars on the other hand specifically target Isreali civilians, in part because civilians are soft targets and they do not have the capability to seriously attack the Israeali military.
HBC is particularly concerned with children's issues. The question we want to persue is how the Isreali-Palesinian conlict has affected the children. We have noted some horific images broadcast by the media. Some seem to defy understanding. Here we need to look at society, education, the economy, living standards, health care, and the conflict itself. This is aparticularly important topic for our HBC assessment. We are not entirely sure how to address this topic, but we have some basic ideas and hopefully readers will also have insights to add.
We do not know a great deal about schools in Isreali and Palestinian education, but we have begun to collect information. There are a variety of complications in looking a Isreali education. There are for example Palestinians and non Jews living in Israel. The subject of Palestinian education is also complicated. The religious issue is complicated by language differences. The Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank and unoccupied Gaza. There are also Palestinians living in various Arab states. We are unsure to what extent the Palestinian children have been integrated into the educational system of those countries. And the wider issue education in Arab states is also of interest. Here we are interested in both the quality of instruction, student achievement and political socialization. The content of text books and libraries is also interesting. This is a very broad topic and one which we do not have much information at this time. We have found some information and thus are creating this page as a place to archive information as we find it. One reason we are interested in this topic is we believe that what a regime teaches its children is an interesting view into the values of a society. Regimes can use propaganda to hide its values and objectives. But it often speaks with considerable clarity when it teaches school children. We invite readers to add here any insights they may have.
HBC deals with many controversial issues. Few are more controversial than the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Our approach to this issue as with other issues covered by HBC is to prevent as much of the facts as possible and to try draw back from judgements based on emotions. We encourage readers to challenge information that they do not agree with or information they may think important. Our general experience here is that many people have formed an opinion on this conflict and are only interested in facts that justify their opinion. Our interest is in collecting as much information from as wide a range of sources as possible. Of course many facts are in question, but many facts are incontestable by fair-minded observers. Readers are welcomed to comment on the pages that we have worked up or issues of concern on this subject. We or other readers may comment.
Clinton, Bill. My Life (Knopf: New York, 2004), 957p.
Hammer, Joshua. A Season in Bethleham: Holy War in a Sacred Place (2003).
Helms, Eichards with William Hood. A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency (Random House, 2003), 478p.
Hertzberg, Arthur. The Fate of Zionism: A Secular Future for Israel and Palestine (Harper: San Francisco, 2003).
Oren, Michael B. Power, Faith, and Fantasy (2007),
Rosenthal, Donna. The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extrodinary Land (Free Press, 2003), 466p. This is rather a popular, but insightful description of Isralei society.
Ross, Dennis. The Missing Peace. Ambassador Ross was deeply involved in the Camp David discussions. Ross includes in his book a verbatim copy of the final offer Barak made and that Arafat refused to accept.
Wasserstein, Bernard. Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop? (Yale University Press, 2003).
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main Israel-Palestine page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]