Untold Lines About Israel and

Palestine Conflict:Insights into

the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

1
All rights reserved. No part of this
publication may be reproduced,
distributed, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, including
photocopying, recording, or other
electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of
the publisher, except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical reviews
and certain other noncommercial uses
permitted by copyright law.

Copyright © (Jose Brooks), (2023).

2
Table Of Contents

INTRODUCTION.
Chapter 1: Historical Roots
The Birth of Modern Israel
Palestinian Nationalism and Identity
Chapter 2: Contested Territories
Borders, Territories, and Settlements.
Gaza and the West Bank: Complex Realities.
Chapter 3: Politics and Governance.
Palestinian Authority and Governance
Structures.
International Mediation Efforts
Chapter 4: The Search for Solutions.
Historical Attempts at Peace.
Prospects for a Sustainable Resolution

3
INTRODUCTION.

The longstanding and complex conflict between

Israelis and Palestinians can be traced back to
the late 19th century. A significant milestone in
this conflict occurred in 1947, when the United
Nations adopted Resolution 181, commonly
known as the Partition Plan. This plan aimed to
divide the British Mandate of Palestine into
separate states for the Arab and Jewish
populations. Eventually, on May 14, 1948, the
State of Israel was officially established, an
event that ignited the first Arab-Israeli War.

4
Although Israel emerged as the victor in 1949,
the consequences of the war were significant,
leading to the displacement of approximately
750,000 Palestinians. The aftermath also saw the
territory being partitioned into three distinct
regions: the State of Israel itself, the West Bank
along the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip. In
the years that followed, tensions in the region
grew, particularly brewing friction between
Israel and its neighboring countries of Egypt,
Jordan, and Syria.

This heightened tension can be traced back to

the aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis, where
Israel's invasion of the Sinai Peninsula led
Egypt, Jordan, and Syria to enter into defense
alliances, fearing Israeli aggression. As a result,
the stage was set for the Six-Day War in June
1967. During this conflict, Israel, perceiving a
threat from Egyptian President Abdel Gamal
Nasser's military maneuvers, launched a
preemptive strike against the Egyptian and
Syrian air forces.

5
This marked the beginning of the Six-Day War,
during which Israel secured territorial control
over the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from
Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from
Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Fast
forward six years, and another major conflict
broke out in the region known as the Yom
Kippur War or the October War. This time, it
was Egypt and Syria that jointly launched a
surprise attack on Israel, aiming to reclaim the
territories they had lost in the previous war.

Despite the intensity of the conflict, neither

Egypt, Israel, nor Syria experienced significant
territorial gains. However, Egyptian President
Anwar al-Sadat, seeing an opportunity in the
negotiations that followed, declared the war a
victory for Egypt. This declaration allowed
Egypt and Syria to engage in discussions
regarding the previously ceded territories.
Finally, after a series of cease-fires and extensive
peace negotiations, a significant breakthrough
occurred in 1979.

6
 Representatives from Egypt and Israel came
together to sign the historic Camp David
Accords, a crucial peace treaty that ultimately
brought an end to the thirty-year-long conflict
between the two nations. This agreement marked
a monumental turning point in the region's
history, signaling the possibility of peaceful
coexistence and fostering diplomatic relations
between Egypt and Israel.

Despite the efforts made through the Camp

David Accords to improve relations between
Israel and its neighboring countries, the issue
surrounding Palestinian self-determination and
self-governance remained unresolved. This
became evident in 1987, when a substantial
number of Palestinians residing in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip took a stand against the
Israeli government, sparking what is famously
known as the first intifada.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine would

see a hopeful turn in 1993 with the introduction
of the Oslo I Accords. These historic agreements

7
facilitated negotiations between the two parties,
ultimately establishing a framework for the
Palestinians to govern themselves in the West
Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, these accords
allowed for mutual recognition between the
newly formed Palestinian Authority and Israel's
government. Continuing the progress of the
Oslo Accords, the Oslo II Agreement emerged in
1995, building upon the initial agreement.

In addition to further enhancing measures for

Palestinian self-governance, this accord included
provisions that required Israel to wholly
withdraw from six cities and 450 towns in the
West Bank. This demonstrated a tangible
commitment towards paving the way for
increased autonomy and territorial control for
the Palestinians.

Although the Camp David Accords brought

some improvements to the relationship between
Israel and its neighboring countries, one vital
issue remained unresolved: Palestinian
self-determination and self-governance. Taking

8
advantage of this unresolved matter, hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians living in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip launched a massive
uprising against the Israeli government, known
as the first intifada, in 1987.

To address the ongoing conflict and strive for a

sustainable resolution, the 1993 Oslo I Accords
were put into place. Serving as mediators, these
accords aimed to establish a comprehensive
framework that would allow the Palestinians to
govern themselves in the West Bank and Gaza.
Additionally, the agreements fostered mutual
recognition between the newly formed
Palestinian Authority and the Israeli
government, laying the foundation for a potential
path towards peaceful coexistence.

Expanding upon the progress of the Oslo

Accords, the Oslo II Agreement emerged in
1995 to further solidify the peace process.
Alongside reinforcing the provisions for
Palestinian self-governance, this agreement
added crucial elements such as Israel's

9
commitment to fully withdraw from six cities
and 450 towns located in the West Bank.
This provision demonstrated a tangible step
towards granting the Palestinians more control
over their own territories and emphasized the
commitment of both parties to pursuing a
sustainable and just solution to the ongoing
conflict. In the year 2000, a series of events
ignited the second intifada, a five-year-long
uprising by Palestinians. One of the contributing
factors was the deep-seated Palestinian
grievances arising from Israel's control over the
West Bank.

Additionally, the peace process between Israel

and Palestine had reached a state of stagnation,
further fueling frustrations among the Palestinian
population. Another significant trigger for the
second intifada was the highly controversial visit
of Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of
Israel, to the al-Aqsa mosque.

This religious site holds immense significance

for Muslims around the world, as it is considered

10
the third holiest site in Islam. The visit by
Sharon in September of that year was perceived
by Palestinians as provocative, further escalating
tensions between the two sides.

The second intifada began in 2000 and lasted

until 2005, resulting in a period of intense
conflict and violence between Israelis and
Palestinians. In response to the uprising, the
Israeli government took decisive action by
approving the construction of a barrier wall
surrounding the West Bank in 2002. This barrier
was intended to provide security for Israeli
citizens and deter potential suicide bombings
and attacks originating from the Palestinian
territories.

The decision to construct the barrier wall faced

significant opposition, not only from
Palestinians but also from international bodies
such as the International Court of Justice and the
International Criminal Court.

11
These entities raised concerns about the legality
and the potential negative impact of the wall on
the daily lives of Palestinians. Despite these
objections, the Israeli government pushed
forward with the construction of the barrier,
emphasizing the need for heightened security
measures to protect its citizens. While the barrier
did succeed in reducing the number of attacks, it
also imposed severe restrictions on the
movement and daily lives of Palestinians living
in the West Bank.

The barrier wall became a highly contentious

issue, with critics arguing that it violated
international law and infringed upon the rights of
Palestinians. Supporters, on the other hand,
maintained that it was a necessary measure to
safeguard Israeli citizens' security in the face of
ongoing violence. Overall, the second intifada
was a tumultuous period marked by grievances,
frustration, and violence on both sides.

The decision to construct the barrier wall was a

response to the escalating tensions and ongoing

12
security concerns. However, it also led to further
polarization between Israelis and Palestinians,
adding another layer of complexity to the
already contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In 2013, the United States made an effort to
reestablish the peace process that aimed to bring
together the Israeli government and the
Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
However, the peace negotiations faced obstacles
when Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian
Authority, joined forces with their rival faction,
Hamas, in 2014. This unexpected collaboration
between Fatah and Hamas disrupted the peace
talks that were underway.

Hamas, which emerged as an offshoot of

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in 1987 after the
initial intifada, is one of the two prominent
political parties in Palestine. It is important to
note that the United States officially labeled
Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization back in
1997. During the summer of 2014, a series of
conflicts erupted in the Palestinian territories,

13
leading to a full-scale military confrontation
between the Israeli military and Hamas.

In this intense battle, Hamas launched an

astonishing number of nearly three thousand
rockets towards Israel, prompting Israel to
respond with a massive offensive in Gaza. This
violent clash persisted for several weeks and
only came to an end in late August 2014 through
a cease-fire agreement mediated by Egypt.
However, the cessation of hostilities was
achieved at a heavy cost, as it resulted in the
deaths of 73 Israelis and 2,251
Palestinians. Following a year marked by a
significant rise in violence between Israelis and
Palestinians in 2015, Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas made a significant declaration.

He announced that Palestinians would no longer

be bound by the territorial divisions established
by the Oslo Accords. This proclamation
reflected a growing frustration and
disillusionment among Palestinians with the
existing peace agreements and their lack of

14
progress in achieving their aspirations for
statehood. Fast forward to the months of March
and May of 2018.

Palestinians residing in the Gaza Strip initiated a

series of weekly demonstrations along the border
separating Gaza and Israel. The timing of the
final protest was of particular significance as it
coincided with the seventieth anniversary of the
Nakba, a historical event that saw the
displacement of Palestinians during the
establishment of Israel.

While the majority of the protesters advocated

for their cause peacefully, there were instances
where some individuals resorted to violence.
They breached the perimeter fence and launched
projectiles, such as rocks and other objects,
towards Israeli forces. These demonstrations
and the subsequent clashes with Israeli forces
resulted in a deeply alarming number of
casualties.

15
According to the United Nations, a staggering
183 demonstrators lost their lives, and over
6,000 sustained injuries inflicted by live
ammunition. The high number of fatalities and
injuries only added fuel to the already volatile
situation, further exacerbating tensions between
Israelis and Palestinians. The profound impact of
these events on the region's stability and
prospects for peace cannot be overstated, as they
represent yet another chapter in the
long-standing and complex Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.

In May 2018, an intense clash erupted between

Hamas and the Israeli military, marking the most
severe episode of violence since 2014. This
violent escalation lasted until a cease-fire
agreement was reached. During this period,
militants from Gaza City launched a staggering
number of over one hundred rockets into Israel,
provoking an immediate response from the
Israeli forces. Israel retaliated by launching
strikes on more than fifty strategic targets in
Gaza within a span of just twenty-four hours.

16
The intensity and rapidity of these
counterattacks made this flare-up particularly
significant.

The U.S. government, under the leadership of

Donald J. Trump placed great importance on
reaching a resolution between Israel and
Palestine, making it a key objective of their
foreign policy agenda. As part of this approach,
the Trump administration made significant
decisions in 2018 that had significant
implications for the region.

Firstly, they decided to halt funding for the UN

Relief and Works Agency, an organization that
plays a crucial role in providing aid and support
to Palestinian refugees. This move not only
impacted the millions of displaced individuals
who rely on this assistance, but it also had
long-term consequences for the stability and
welfare of the Palestinian population.

Additionally, the Trump administration elected

to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to

17
Jerusalem. This decision was a notable departure
from the established U.S. policy, which had
previously endorsed a more neutral stance on the
dispute between Israel and Palestine. The
relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem sparked
widespread controversy and drew criticism from
various stakeholders in the international
community. It represented a symbolic shift in the
U.S.'s position and demonstrated a clear
alignment with Israel, further complicating the
already intricate dynamics of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the months of August and September 2020,

two nations, namely the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) and Bahrain, made historical decisions to
establish normal relations with Israel, signifying
a significant development in the region. These
were groundbreaking steps taken by the UAE
and Bahrain, as they became only the third and
fourth countries in the Middle East, respectively,
to initiate such normalization, following the
examples set by Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in
1994.

18
These agreements, known as the Abraham
Accords, were reached after a series of extensive
diplomatic efforts by the United States, which
had previously hosted ministerial talks in
Warsaw, Poland, concerning the future of peace
in the Middle East. The event took place more
than eighteen months prior to the accords being
signed.

While these agreements were celebrated by

some, including Israel, and viewed as a
promising path towards regional stability,
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas adamantly
rejected the accords, reiterating a long-standing
Palestinian stance. It is important to note that the
actions taken by the UAE and Bahrain were also
met with opposition from Hamas, whose
rejection of the agreements reflected their
unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.

19
An Israeli court made a ruling in October 2020
regarding the eviction of numerous Palestinian
families residing in Sheikh Jarrah, a
neighborhood located in East Jerusalem. The
court decreed that these families were to be
evicted by May 2021, and their land would be
transferred to Jewish families. As a response to
this decision, several Palestinian families from
Sheikh Jarrah filed an appeal to challenge the
ruling in February 2021.

This appeal sparked widespread protests and

demonstrations, as the local community became
increasingly concerned about the ongoing legal
dispute surrounding property ownership and the
resulting forced displacement of Palestinians
from their homes in Jerusalem. Towards the end
of April 2021, Palestinians took to the streets of
Jerusalem to express their discontent over the
imminent evictions. Additionally, the residents
of Sheikh Jarrah, along with other activists,
initiated nightly sit-ins as a form of protest.

20
As the month of May began, the protests
escalated after a court ruling supported the
evictions. In response, Israeli police employed
force against the demonstrators. On May 7th,
after weeks of daily protests and increasing
tensions between protesters, Israeli settlers, and
the police during the holy month of Ramadan,
violence erupted at the al-Aqsa Mosque complex
in Jerusalem. This confrontation witnessed the
use of stun grenades, rubber bullets, and water
cannons by the Israeli police, resulting in
hundreds of Palestinians sustaining injuries.

Following the clashes that occurred in

Jerusalem's historic Old City, tensions in East
Jerusalem escalated significantly. These tensions
were further heightened by the observance of
Jerusalem Day, a celebration that commemorates
Israel's capture of East Jerusalem during the
1967 Six-Day War.

The situation intensified on May 10, when

Jerusalem experienced consecutive days of
unrest and violence, during which the Israeli

21
police resorted to both lethal and nonlethal force.
In response to these actions, Hamas, a militant
group in control of Gaza, along with other
Palestinian militant factions, launched a barrage
of hundreds of rockets into Israel territory.
In an attempt to retaliate, Israel initiated artillery
assaults and carried out airstrikes in Gaza,
resulting in the deaths of more than twenty
Palestinians. While Israel claimed that their
targets were Hamas, other militant organizations,
and their associated infrastructure, such as
tunnels and rocket launchers, they expanded
their aerial campaign to include non-military
structures. Regrettably, residential buildings,
media headquarters, as well as refugee and
healthcare facilities, became the unintended
victims of these strikes.

The scope of Israel's offensive extended beyond

strictly military targets and impacted the lives
and well-being of innocent civilians. Despite the
stated objective of targeting militant groups and
their infrastructure, the airstrikes and artillery
bombardments not only caused casualties but

22
also inflicted significant damage to essential
civilian facilities.

Residential buildings, where families lived and

sought refuge, were ruthlessly destroyed,
contributing to the already dire housing crisis
faced by the Palestinian population. Media
outlets, responsible for reporting the realities on
the ground, were also targeted, limiting the flow
of information and impeding the ability of
journalists to document and communicate the
human suffering caused by the conflict.

Furthermore, critical refugee and healthcare

facilities, which serve as lifelines for vulnerable
communities, were harmed, jeopardizing access
to essential services such as medical treatment
and humanitarian support. The escalating
violence and the disproportionate impact on
civilian infrastructure have exacerbated the
already deep-seated tensions and grievances
between Israelis and Palestinians.

23
 As casualties continue to rise, it becomes
increasingly challenging to find a path towards
de-escalation and a lasting solution to the
conflict. Both sides are locked in a cycle of
violence, further entrenching their respective
positions and perpetuating the cycle of
retribution. In light of these developments, the
international community faces the urgent task of
intervening and facilitating negotiations that
prioritize a ceasefire, the protection of civilian
lives, and the restoration of essential services.

It is crucial to address the root causes of the

conflict, including the dispossession of
Palestinian lands, the expansion of Israeli
settlements, and the lack of a political process
that offers a viable path to peace and
self-determination for the Palestinian
people. Recognizing the complexities and
historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, a comprehensive approach that
addresses the political, economic, and
humanitarian aspects is necessary for sustainable
progress.

24
Only through genuine dialogue, respect for
international law, and a commitment to
addressing the rights and aspirations of both
Israelis and Palestinians can a just and lasting
resolution be achieved. On the 21st of May, in
the year 2021, Israel and Hamas reached an
agreement to bring about a cessation of
hostilities, an accord that was skillfully brokered
by Egypt. Both parties involved in the conflict
fervently claimed victory, while remarkably, no
violations of the agreement were reported. It is
extremely disheartening to acknowledge that
during the period of eleven agonizing days, the
conflict resulted in the devastating loss of over
two hundred and fifty precious Palestinian lives,
as well as the infliction of almost two thousand
grievous injuries upon them.

Furthermore, tragically, thirteen lives of Israeli

individuals were also tragically cut short as a
consequence of the violence. Tremendous
devastation ensued within the Gaza Strip, as
authorities have estimated that the incurred

25
damage and destruction amount to tens of
millions of dollars.

To compound the immense suffering, the United

Nations estimates that a staggering 72,000
Palestinians were compelled to flee their homes
and were left displaced in the aftermath of the
fighting.

26
Chapter 1: Historical Roots

Prior to World War I, the Middle East,

specifically Ottoman Syria (which includes what
is now considered Palestine), was under
Ottoman Empire control for approximately 400
years. The region of Palestine, divided between
the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, Syria Vilayet,
and Beirut Vilayet, was predominantly inhabited
by Arab Muslims, including farmers and
Bedouins (particularly in the Negev and Jordan
Valley). There were also smaller populations of
Christians (mostly Arabs), Druze, Circassians,
and Jews (predominantly Sephardic).

During this time, the majority of Jews lived

outside of Palestine, mainly in eastern and
central Europe, with significant communities in
the Mediterranean, Middle East, and the
Americas. The conflict between Jews and Arabs
in Palestine can be traced back to the late 19th
century, when nationalist movements like
Zionism and Arab nationalism started gaining

27
momentum. While the idea of Jews returning to
Zion had been part of Jewish religious thought
for centuries, it was only between 1859 and the
1880s that discussions on immigration to the
Land of Israel and the re-establishment of a
Jewish nation became more prominent.

These discussions were largely fueled by the

widespread persecution and anti-Semitism Jews
faced in Russia and Europe. Thus, the political
movement for the creation of a Jewish
homeland, known as the Zionist movement, was
established in 1897. The Zionists advocated for a
nation-state for the Jewish people in Palestine,
where they could exercise self-determination and
find refuge from persecution.

They believed that their historic homeland,

which they referred to as the Land of Israel,
should serve as the location for this state.
Meanwhile, Arab nationalism and loyalty to the
Ottoman state were prevalent in the region,
alongside the early development of Syrian
nationalism.

28
Benny Morris records one of the first recorded
violent incidents between Arab Muslims and
Jewish immigrants in Palestine. In December
1882, during a wedding in Safed, an Arab man
was accidentally shot and killed by a Jewish
guard from the newly formed Rosh Pinna. In
response, approximately 200 Arabs attacked the
Jewish settlement, throwing stones and
vandalizing property.

Another incident took place in Petah Tikva in

early 1886, where Jewish settlers demanded their
tenants vacate disputed land and began
encroaching on it. This led to an attack on a
Jewish settler and the confiscation of mules, as
well as subsequent vandalism and injuries to
Jewish settlers.

By 1908, thirteen Jews had been killed by Arabs,

and an additional twelve Jewish settlement
guards were killed in the next five years. The
settlers increasingly viewed these incidents as
acts of Arab "hatred" and "nationalism" rather
than mere banditry.

29
Arab leaders in Palestine began considering
Zionist ambitions as a threat. The tension
between the parties intensified due to
developments like the acquisition of Arab lands
for Jewish settlements, causing the Arab
population to feel dispossessed. Ottoman
regulations on land purchase were implemented
in response to local complaints against
increasing Jewish immigration, as the Ottoman
authorities were concerned about Russian and
European influences and the immigrants' loyalty
to their home countries.

These concerns were heightened by experiences

in the Balkan region, where Ottoman authority
crumbled. Local residents also viewed European
immigration as a threat to the cultural fabric of
the region. The anti-Jewish riots in Russia and
anti-immigration legislation in Europe also led
to Jewish immigration waves into Palestine.

The growing extent of Zionist ventures in the

region further fueled Arab protests against
Jewish land acquisitions. In 1892, the Arab

30
population in Palestine began demonstrating
against these developments.

The Birth of Modern Israel

David Ben-Gurion, the Jewish Agency

Chairman, made a historic announcement on
May 14, 1948, in the vibrant city of Tel Aviv.
This groundbreaking proclamation established
the State of Israel, marking a significant
milestone in Jewish history. After two millennia
of longing and anticipation, the Jewish people
finally witnessed the birth of their first sovereign
state since ancient times.

It was David Ben-Gurion himself who assumed

the crucial role of Israel's first premier, leading
the nation into a new era of independence and
self-determination. From afar, the echoes of
gunfire resonated, marking the start of hostilities
that erupted between Jews and Arabs right after
the British military departed earlier that day.

31
Later in the evening, Egypt initiated an aerial
offensive against Israel. Despite the imposed
blackout in Tel Aviv and the looming threat of
an Arab invasion, the Jewish community found
solace and jubilation in the establishment of their
long-awaited nation, especially upon receiving
the news that the United States had
acknowledged the legitimacy of the Jewish state.

At precisely midnight, the State of Israel was

officially solidified with the termination of the
British mandate in Palestine. The origins of
modern Israel can be traced back to the
movement of Zionism that emerged in the late
19th century. This movement was initiated by
Jews residing in the Russian Empire who had
endured persecution and sought to establish a
territorial Jewish state.

A significant milestone in this movement was

the publication of a compelling political
pamphlet titled The Jewish State by Theodor
Herzl, a journalist from Austria, in 1896. In this
influential piece, Herzl argued that the creation

32
of a Jewish state was imperative for
safeguarding Jews from the pervasive
anti-Semitism they faced. With his astute
leadership, Herzl convened the inaugural Zionist
Congress in Switzerland in 1897, only to
encounter the disappointment of his efforts to
obtain a charter from the Ottoman government
for the establishment of a Jewish state.

Nevertheless, the original homeland of the Jews,

Palestine, under Ottoman control, was identified
as the most desirable location for the formation
of this state. During the Six-Day War of 1967,
which marked the third Arab-Israeli conflict,
Israel managed to significantly expand its
territorial boundaries by gaining control over
various regions previously occupied by Jordan,
Egypt, and Syria.

These captured territories included the Old City

of Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza
Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.
The outcome of this war ushered in a new phase
for Israel's geopolitical landscape.

33
 Subsequently, in 1979, Israel took a
monumental step towards peace by establishing
an agreement with Egypt. This historic peace
accord entailed Israel's relinquishment of the
Sinai Peninsula in exchange for Egyptian
recognition and a commitment to maintain
peaceful relations.

The signing of this agreement not only

showcased Israel's willingness to broker a path
towards stability in the region but also signified
an important diplomatic breakthrough. Building
upon this momentum, a notable peace agreement
was reached between Israel and the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993.

This agreement embodied a comprehensive

vision for the gradual implementation of
Palestinian self-governance within the West
Bank and Gaza Strip. It represented a significant
milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process, offering a potential pathway towards a
lasting and just resolution to the long-standing
conflict. Nevertheless, progress towards a

34
sustainable peace has encountered numerous
setbacks, hindering the smooth realization of the
envisioned peace agreement.

Throughout the 21st century, the region has

witnessed recurrent bouts of violence between
Israelis and Palestinians, both in Israel itself and
the occupied territories. This intermittent
resumption of hostilities has underscored the
complexities involved in achieving a durable and
mutually agreed-upon resolution.

Palestinian Nationalism and Identity

In order to understand the origins of Palestinian

nationalism, it is necessary to delve into the
history of Arab nationalism, which was heavily
shaped by the events of the late 19th-century
Ottoman period.

Scholars like Rashid Khalidi argue that the

awakening of Arab consciousness and
subsequent rise of Arab nationalism can be
attributed to the impact of the First World War

35
and the activities of the Zionist movement. As
part of the Arab world, the Palestinians were
influenced by these developments as well. The
influence of Zionism played a particularly
significant role in shaping Palestinian politics
and determining their political future.

The Palestine question can be traced back to the

problem of Western intervention, which
involved both cultural and political penetration.
While Jewish nationalism originated from
responses to the pogroms in Eastern Europe and
Russia, Arab nationalism arose as a direct
reaction to Turkish oppression under the
Ottoman Empire and European colonialism.

Throughout its history, Palestine became the

center of conflicting political claims and intense
religious attachments, which ultimately
influenced the development of two competing
nationalisms: Arab nationalism and Zionism.
Both movements emerged around the same time
in the late 19th century and gained significant
political strength in the 20th century.

36
 However, their fortunes and setbacks were
largely dependent on European politics,
especially the actions of major powers. The
growing interest among Arabs in their cultural
heritage and traditions led to the emergence of
Arab nationalism in key cities of the Fertile
Crescent, with Damascus serving as a major
center of political organization and strength.

However, Western colonial rule and the threat of

Zionism caused Arab nationalism to fragment,
diverting the political elites of Syria, Iraq, and
Palestine towards local concerns. This
fragmentation disillusioned Palestinian notables,
who had hoped for national self-determination
and political independence within a unified Arab
nationalist movement.

As a result, Palestinian nationalism developed its

own ideology and institutional framework
following World War I. Muhammad Muslih, a
prominent political scientist, identified two
important factors that contributed to this
development: the internal fragmentation of the

37
Arab nationalist movement and the external
dismemberment of Syria by Britain and France.

Zionism acted as a catalyst for Palestinian

nationalism, but it did not contribute to its
creation. Instead, Zionism provided Palestinians
with a central focus for their national struggle.
However, despite its distinct characteristics,
Palestinian nationalism incorporated the ideals
of pan-Arabism, emphasizing Arab unity and
independence.

Unfortunately, internal divisions and political

fragmentation hindered the Palestinian national
movement, which relied heavily on factionalism
based on tribalism and parochialism during the
1930s and 1940s. Nonetheless, nationalism
served as the motivating force behind the
Palestinian revolt against the British Mandate
and political Zionism.

The British policy of "divide and rule"

succeeded in exacerbating rivalries between
leading Palestinian families, ultimately

38
contributing to the loss of part of Palestine in
1948. After the war, Palestinian society
experienced fragmentation and dispersal, leading
to a growing heterogeneity in the economic and
political spheres.

The nearly four million Palestinians in the

diaspora today are alienated from their homeland
and rely on the goodwill of their hosts for their
basic needs. While "the homeland" remains an
essential aspect of Palestinian identity, the
majority of Palestinians' physical absence from it
has turned it into an abstract concept. Despite
social, economic, and political alienation,
Palestinians have managed to retain a strong
sense of selfhood and national identity.

However, the Palestinian national movement

lacked a unified, mass-based political entity and
was characterized by diverse factions. After the
1948 war, Palestinian nationalism took on a new
form in refugee camps, schools, and universities,
where various organizations were established,
attracting members from different social

39
backgrounds. This shift from the politics of the
elites to mass-based organizations brought about
a distinct change. During the 1950s and early
1960s, Palestinian national identity became
solidified within the context of pan-Arab
ideology.

Palestinians became actively involved in local

Arab politics, emphasizing slogans of unity,
freedom, and socialism. Consequently, the
Palestinian question became Arabized, losing
some of its quintessential Palestinian character
and identity. Over time, Palestinians became
frustrated and disappointed with the limitations
of the Arab world's support.

The challenging situation faced by the

Palestinian elite and intellectuals prompted them
to delve deep into their inner potentials as a
means of revitalizing their sense of nationalism
and rejuvenating their culture and identity. This
was achieved through various literary
publications and the establishment of grassroots
organizations at all levels of society.

40
Despite this, ongoing discussions continue to
take place among Palestinians regarding their
national interests. As previously mentioned, the
development of Palestinian national identity and
the process of nation building has become a
tangible reality. From 1982 to 1987,
Palestinians living in occupied territories began
constructing a structure that served as a direct
challenge to the Israeli occupation.

The 1987 Intifada played a pivotal role in

triggering a coordinated effort by the dispersed
Palestinian community to explore and harness
their newfound empowerment. The mass
organizations, grassroots networks, and popular
committees formed the central core of the
uprising. Simultaneously, the Intifada opened
up a national discourse among various political
groups within the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), bridging the divide
between the "interior" and "exterior," and
fostering dialogue between the "nationalist" and
"religious" factions.

41
It comes as no surprise that the displacement and
estrangement experienced by Palestinians have
only further solidified their sense of national
identity and amplified their commitment to
Palestinian nationalism. Literature, particularly
poetry, plays a pivotal role in shaping the
narrative of Palestinian nationalism,
emphasizing the longing to reclaim their
homeland and achieve independence.

Through the power of literature, fragmented

Palestinian communities have managed to unify,
empathize with one another, and ultimately
establish a collective and unified national
identity that is embodied in their shared struggle
for self-determination. "The formation of the
PLO and its impact on the shaping of Palestinian
identity can be observed through various
significant factors and events that took place
during this period of time."

42
 In the early 1960s, following a change in
leadership, the Palestinian national movement
embarked on a momentous journey to attain
sovereignty and establish an autonomous
Palestinian state.

This arduous task was assumed by the

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),
which was officially established in 1964 under
the auspices of the Arab League. Initially, Egypt
under the leadership of Nasser supported this
endeavor, not only to assimilate the newly
formed organization but also to exercise control
over it.

At the helm of the PLO stood Ahmad

AI-Shuqayri, whose close ties to Nasser were
widely recognized, lending further credibility to
the cause. Additionally, the Palestinian
Liberation Army, which fell under the command
of the unified Arab front, was led by an Egyptian
commander. From its inception, the PLO was
immersed in internal strife and disagreements
between different factions.

43
The organization's existence and
decision-making processes were heavily
influenced by rivalries among Arab nations,
particularly Syria and Egypt, and to a lesser
extent Jordan. Within the PLO, Fatah, a
prominent organization, focused on using
military force against Israel and distanced itself
from the inter-Arab conflict.

Despite Fatah's dominant position within the

PLO, the June 1967 war had devastating
consequences for both the Arab states and the
Palestinians. Many Palestinians were forced to
flee once again, seeking refuge in countries like
Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, and were denied the
right to return to their homes. Others were left
to live under Israeli occupation in their
homeland.

However, despite this catastrophic event that

further worsened the situation for Palestinians,
new approaches to Palestinian nationalism
emerged through political organizations.

44
Palestinian leaders grew disillusioned with the
support they were receiving from Arab regimes
and began advocating for the creation of
independent Palestinian organizations that were
free from external Arab control. Palestinians
shifted their focus from pan-Arabism and Arab
unity to prioritizing Palestinian nationalism and
the fight for independence.

After the Naksa in 1967, there was a pressing

need to rebuild Palestinian society. Ideology,
armed struggle, and diplomatic strategies took a
backseat to the establishment of an organization
that could effectively champion the Palestinian
cause and take concrete action on behalf of all
Palestinians.

This new leadership had to engage in activities

such as procuring weapons, raising funds, and
developing a territorial base that could
strengthen connections with Palestinians in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as enable
military operations against Israel.

45
The Palestinian nationalist movement has been
characterized by a high level of tolerance for
division and diversity, with pluralism becoming
almost a defining trait. Despite challenging
circumstances and a hostile environment, the
PLO successfully reconstructed a shattered
Palestinian society. Against all odds, it created
a remarkable infrastructure that managed to
address the political and material needs of
dispersed Palestinians.

Even though there were militant elements within

its organizational structure, the PLO persevered
in its mission. The Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO) accomplished the
establishment of a comprehensive civilian
institutional framework, designed specifically to
address the various requirements of the
Palestinian people living in exile.

Throughout the years, the PLO managed to

construct a robust infrastructure capable of
meeting the diverse needs and aspirations of the

46
Palestinian nation in diaspora. It is undeniably
true that the PLO intentionally worked towards
establishing a society that encompassed a large
number of people in Lebanon during the 1970s.

The political consequences of constructing a

diverse range of social institutions held immense
significance in shaping a structure to address the
internal political dynamics and formulate
effective strategies.

"Palestinian National Identity and the Role of

the Islamic Movement during the AI-Aqsa
Intifada" As the AI-Aqsa Intifada unfolded,
Palestinian national identity became a central
focus, particularly in relation to the Islamic
Movement's involvement. The development of
a distinctive national identity among Palestinians
gained significance, shaping their struggle
against Israeli occupation.

During the AI-Aqsa Intifada, the Palestinian

people witnessed a surge in their determination
to assert their national identity. The Intifada

47
served as a catalyst, as it galvanized different
factions and individuals, including the Islamic
Movement, to fight for a shared cause.
Consequently, the Islamic Movement played a
pivotal role in shaping Palestinian national
identity during this period.

The Islamic Movement, rooted in religious

principles, resonated with the Palestinian people
who sought solace and guidance in their faith
during the Intifada. This connection fueled a
sense of unity and collectively contributed to the
formation of a distinct national identity. The
Islamic Movement's involvement provided a
platform for Palestinians to assert their cultural,
historical, and religious identity, consolidating
their collective vision of their homeland.

Moreover, the Islamic Movement's emphasis on

Islamic teachings and values in the face of
Israeli aggression enhanced Palestinians'
resilience and fortified their national identity.
The Movement's commitment to principles of
justice, freedom, and resistance resonated with

48
the Palestinian population seeking to reclaim
their rights and dignity. This alignment between
the Islamic Movement's ideology and the
aspirations of the Palestinian people further
solidified their sense of national identity.

The AI-Aqsa Intifada not only provided a

backdrop for Palestinians to express their
distinct national identity but also compelled the
Islamic Movement to adapt its strategies and
objectives. In this conflict, the Islamic
Movement transcended its religious role and
assumed a larger nationalist stance, effectively
bridging the gap between religion and politics.

The Islamic Movement's involvement in the

AI-Aqsa Intifada resulted in a paradigm shift, as
it merged religious sentiments with a
nationalistic agenda. Its actions became
intertwined with the aspirations of the
Palestinian people, encouraging a collective
sense of identity grounded in shared beliefs,
values, and goals.

49
During this period, the Islamic Movement also
played a critical role in preserving Palestinian
heritage and cultural symbols. By defending
religious and historical sites, such as the
Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Islamic Movement helped
safeguard the collective memory and identity of
the Palestinian people. This protection
enhanced their sense of pride and unity in the
face of Israeli attempts to marginalize their
history.

Furthermore, the Islamic Movement's

participation in various aspects of Palestinian
life, including education, healthcare, and social
welfare, showcased its commitment to the
well-being and development of Palestinian
society. By engaging in these vital sectors, the
Islamic Movement symbolized a broader vision
of a prosperous and self-reliant Palestinian
nation.

In conclusion, the AI-Aqsa Intifada played a

crucial role in shaping Palestinian national
identity, with the Islamic Movement serving as a

50
prominent catalyst in this process. Its emphasis
on religion, resistance, and preservation of
cultural heritage resonated with the Palestinian
people, fostering a sense of unity and
determination to reclaim their homeland. The
Islamic Movement's involvement in this conflict
marks a significant turning point as it merged
religious and nationalist principles, effectively
contributing to the formation of a robust and
distinct Palestinian national identity.

Throughout the struggle for independence,

Palestinian nationalism has been strongly
influenced by Islamic forces, who have provided
it with motivation and guidance in its
confrontation with the Zionists. This is evident
in various historical events, such as the incidents
of 1920, the Wailing Wall Incident of 1929, the
1936 Arab Revolt, and the involvement of
Izzedin AI-Qassam. Additionally, the impact of
Islamic forces can be seen in the 1948 war, the
1987 Intifada, and the current AI-Aqsa Intifada,
where Hamas and Islamic Jihad have played
significant roles.

51
Despite the presence of secular tendencies
within the Palestinian national movement, the
Islamic dimension has remained a powerful
force in the struggle for independence. This is
why Islam has always been a central point of
discussion and debate in Palestinian politics,
serving as a source of checks and balances
within the Palestinian polity. The emergence of
the Islamic movement in response to complex
conditions prompted Hamas founders to adopt a
strategy that combines pragmatism and realism
to adapt to the political climate.

The faltering peace process has amplified

support for the Islamic movement, particularly
led by Hamas. The worsening state of affairs
provides Hamas with increased power, stemming
from the support of the Palestinian public,
enabling the advancement of their own political
agenda under the overarching Islamic ideology.
It is estimated that Hamas currently enjoys the
support of 30 percent of the Palestinian
population.

52
Hamas plays a crucial role in addressing
Palestinian socio-economic and medical needs,
and its military operations against Israel have
further solidified its presence.

The appeal of Hamas extends to various

segments of the Palestinian society, including
youth, women, and parts of the intellectual elite.
The growing popularity of Hamas on the
Palestinian streets has led many Palestinians to
shift their allegiance from the nationalist bloc to
the Islamic bloc, believing that Hamas is better
positioned to fulfill their national aspirations.

However, it is important to note that Hamas has

the political objective of establishing a
Palestinian state based on Islamic principles,
while the nationalist movement still advocates
for the creation of a secular Palestinian state
within the borders that existed in 1967.

53
 It is crucial to recognize this difference in order
to grasp the fundamental elements driving the
Palestinian national conversation during the
ongoing Intifada. Consequently, the presence of
occupation and grave socio-economic
circumstances, coupled with the perceived
shortcomings of the Palestinian National
Authority (PNA), have all contributed to the
increased support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Chapter 2: Contested Territories

The occupied territories, which consist of the

West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip,
are under the control of both Israel and the
Palestinian Authority (PA). The division of
responsibilities often overlaps in much of the
territory.

The PA Basic Law, serving as a temporary

constitution, designates Islam as the official
religion but also emphasizes respect for other
religions. There was ongoing violence between

54
Palestinians and Israeli security forces in Israel,
Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank throughout
the year. In these incidents, a total of 91
Palestinians and eight Israelis lost their lives in
attacks that took place outside the Green Line in
Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank.

The religious identity of the violence was often

difficult to determine, as religion and ethnicity
or nationality were closely intertwined. Jewish
Temple Mount activists, with the facilitation of
the Israeli authorities, made a higher number of
visits to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount than
in previous years, resulting in fewer instances of
violence at the site.

However, the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, Jewish

Temple Mount movement groups, and local
media reported that Jewish activists violated the
understanding between the Israeli government
and the Jordanian authorities managing the site
by conducting religious rituals there. According
to these sources, the Israeli government, citing
security, continued to prohibit non-Muslim

55
worship at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Additionally, the Israeli government prohibited
Knesset members and government ministers
from visiting the site for security reasons.

Furthermore, intermittent restrictions on

Palestinian access to religious sites, including
the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, were also
imposed by the Israeli authorities. In comparison
to the previous year, Muslim access to the
Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount was limited for
fewer days. Waqf officials claimed that the
police increased their restrictions on the
operations and renovation activities of the Waqf
at the site.

The movement of Muslims and Christians was

hindered by travel restrictions during major
Jewish holidays and the further construction of
Israel's separation barrier between the West
Bank and Jerusalem. Muslims and Christians
were allowed to pray at the Western Wall by
Israeli authorities, but Palestinian access to the
site was limited based on security reasons.

56
 At the Western Wall, leaders of the Orthodox
Jewish community enforced gender segregation
for Jewish worshippers. However, the cabinet
agreement made in January to establish a
Reform, Conservative, and mixed-gender prayer
platform along a separate portion of the Western
Wall was not implemented by the Israeli
government.

Reform, Conservative, and women's Jewish

groups, including some Orthodox Jewish
women's groups, advocated for this proposal, but
it faced opposition from ultra-Orthodox Jewish
religious leaders and political figures.

"Price tag" attacks, committed by Jewish

extremist groups against Muslim and Christian
Palestinians and their religious sites, were
condemned by Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, and other leaders.

57
The Israeli government detained numerous
individuals in connection with these attacks, but
local human rights groups and the media
reported that successful prosecutions were rare.

In January, two Jewish suspects were indicted

for their involvement in the arson attack on a
Palestinian home in the West Bank village of
Douma in July 2015; however, no convictions
had been made by December. Religious groups
such as Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelicals,
who are not recognized by the Palestinian
Authority, faced difficulties in obtaining
personal status documents, including marriage
certificates.

Intolerant religious material continued to be

present in official Palestinian Authority media.
In Gaza, Hamas, designated as a terrorist
organization by the United States and effectively
governing the area, imposed restrictions on
Gaza's population based on their interpretation
of Islam and sharia law. Hamas-controlled media
also frequently broadcast anti-Semitic material.

58
There were instances of violence committed on
religious grounds, such as Palestinian youths
throwing rocks at Jewish visitors to Joseph's
Tomb in Nablus and the Mount of Olives in
Jerusalem. In addition, Palestinians reportedly
set fire to a synagogue in a West Bank settlement
near Hebron and vandalized the Mount of Olives
cemetery and a synagogue in Jerusalem.

Jewish extremist "price tag" attacks also

included assaults on Christian clergy, vandalism,
and anti-Christian graffiti at the Dormition
Abbey and the Greek and Armenian Orthodox
cemeteries on Mt. Zion near Jerusalem's Old
City, as well as arson attacks on several more
homes in the West Bank village of Douma.
Jewish groups opposed to interfaith interactions
continued to harass and assault Palestinian
Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem.

Christian clergy in Jerusalem and visitors to

religious sites experienced harassment from
some Jews, while Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox
Jews targeted Jewish worshippers whose

59
practices did not conform to Jewish Orthodox
traditions at religious sites. U.S. Consulate
General officials in Jerusalem held meetings
with Palestinian Authority officials to discuss
religious tolerance and concerns about access to
religious sites.

They expressed concerns about UNESCO

resolutions, supported by the Palestinian
Authority, that minimized or disregarded the
Jewish historical and religious connection to the
Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and Western
Wall. Senior U.S. government officials,
including the U.S. Permanent Representative to
the United Nations and a Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, visited and met with political,
religious, and civil society leaders to promote
tolerance and cooperation against religious
prejudice.

Consulate General officers also met with

representatives of religious groups to monitor
their concerns regarding access to religious sites,

60
the treatment of clergy, and the incidents of
attacks on religious sites and houses of worship.

Borders, Territories, and Settlements.

The current borders of Israel are a result of

various factors, including historical conflicts,
diplomatic agreements, and the actions of
colonial powers in the region prior to Israel's
establishment.

Out of the five potential land borders that Israel

could have, only two are recognized and
undisputed at the international level. The
remaining three borders are subject to disputes,
mainly stemming from the territorial changes
that occurred during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

This conflict led to Israel occupying significant

portions of land from its adversaries. Israel's
officially recognized borders are with Egypt and
Jordan, established through the 1979
Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the 1994
Israel-Jordan peace treaty, respectively. On the

61
other hand, Israel's borders with Syria
(specifically via the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights), Lebanon (through the Blue Line,
which is subject to the Shebaa Farms dispute),
and the Palestinian territories (land occupied by
Israel and largely acknowledged as part of the de
jure State of Palestine) are internationally
accepted as contested areas.

As per the Green Line, which was agreed upon

in the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Israel is
separated from Lebanon to the north, the Golan
Heights (currently under Syrian control) and the
remaining parts of Syria to the northeast, the
Palestinian West Bank and Jordan to the east,
and the Palestinian Gaza Strip and Egypt to the
southwest.

The border between Israel and Egypt is the

international boundary established in 1906
between the United Kingdom and the Ottoman
Empire, a demarcation that was later confirmed
in the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

62
 Similarly, Israel's border with Jordan is based
on the border defined in the 1922 Trans-Jordan
memorandum and was further solidified in the
1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Israeli
settlements or colonies refer to civilian
communities consisting primarily of Jewish
citizens that have been established on land
occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in
1967.

These settlements are predominantly inhabited

by individuals of Jewish ethnicity. However, it is
noteworthy that the international community
widely regards these settlements as illegal based
on international law, while Israel contests this
viewpoint. Israeli settlements currently exist in
the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which
is claimed by the State of Palestine as its
sovereign territory.

These settlements are also found in the Golan

Heights, an area considered to be Syrian territory
by the international community.

63
 It is worth noting that Israel has effectively
annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights,
even though this change of status has been
rejected by the international community, which
still considers these territories occupied.

In terms of governance, the West Bank

settlements are situated on land that is
administered under Israeli military rule rather
than civil law. However, Israeli civil law is
extended to these settlements, resulting in Israeli
citizens residing in them being treated similarly
to those living within Israel itself. As of January
2023, the number of Israeli settlements located
in the West Bank stands at 144, and among
them, we find 12 settlements specifically
situated in East Jerusalem.

Furthermore, it is important to note the

existence of over 100 Israeli illegal outposts
within the West Bank region. In terms of
population, the West Bank hosts more than
450,000 Israeli settlers, excluding those residing
in East Jerusalem, where an additional 220,000

64
Jewish settlers can be found. Additionally, it is
worth mentioning that over 25,000 Israeli
settlers have chosen to reside in the Golan
Heights. In the past, Israeli settlements were
established on both the Sinai Peninsula, which
belongs to Egypt, and the Gaza Strip, which
belongs to the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, as a result of the 1979

Egypt-Israel peace agreement, Israel chose to
remove and demolish the 18 settlements on the
Sinai Peninsula. Similarly, in 2005, as part of its
independent disconnection from Gaza, Israel
also evacuated all 21 settlements in the Gaza
Strip, along with four additional settlements in
the West Bank.

Israel has created Jewish communities in East

Jerusalem and in the part of the Golan Heights
that it occupies. In the eyes of Israel, these areas
have been effectively declared to be part of
Israel, and therefore, they do not classify these
developments as settlements. Conversely, the
international community views both regions as

65
being under Israeli control, and the
establishments established there are considered
illegal settlements.

The International Court of Justice stated in its

2004 advisory opinion on the West Bank barrier
that these settlements are unlawful. Continuing
in the West Bank, Israel persists in expanding its
existing settlements while also establishing new
ones. This occurs even in the face of
international pressure to cease such actions.
Transferring a civilian population into territory
occupied by an occupying power is considered a
war crime, as stated by various sources.
However, Israel disputes the application of this
principle to the West Bank.

This issue gained international attention when

the International Criminal Court announced an
investigation into alleged war crimes committed
in Palestine in December 2019. The expansion
of existing Israeli settlements and the
construction of new settlement outposts in the
West Bank have long been criticized by

66
Palestinians and various third parties, including
the OIC, the United Nations, Russia, the United
Kingdom, France, and the European Union.
These settlements are viewed as an obstacle to
the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Moreover, the settlements are widely

recognized by the international community as
illegal under international law. The United
Nations has consistently upheld the position that
Israel's construction of settlements violates the
Fourth Geneva Convention.

For many years, the United States also deemed

the settlements to be "illegitimate," but this
changed in November 2019 when the Trump
administration shifted its stance, stating that the
establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in
the West Bank is not inherently inconsistent with
international law.

67
Gaza and the West Bank: Complex Realities.

The Gaza Strip and the West Bank encompass

two regions in Palestine, which were originally
under Mandate Palestine and subsequently
became occupied by Israel following the
Six-Day War in 1967. These areas are home to a
substantial population of more than 5 million
Palestinians, who reside between both territories.

The Gaza Strip, which spans approximately 140

square miles, is situated in the southwestern part
of Israel, nestled alongside the picturesque
shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, it
forms a contiguous boundary with the
neighboring country of Egypt, elegantly
stretching towards the south.

The West Bank, an expansive territory covering

2,173 square miles, is situated within the borders
of Israel. It surpasses the Gaza Strip in size and
is positioned on the eastern frontiers of Israel,
following the course of the Jordan River and
containing a significant portion of the Dead Sea.

68
Hence, it owes its name to its geographical
location. Internationally recognized as a part of
the West Bank, the sacred city of Jerusalem
holds immense importance.

The status of East Jerusalem, claimed as the

capital by both Israelis and Palestinians, further
adds to the complexity and significance of the
West Bank. During the historical confrontation
known as the Six-Day War in 1967, four nations
of the Middle East, namely Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
and Syria, found themselves entangled in a
fierce military conflict.

It is worth mentioning that prior to this pivotal

event, the Gaza Strip was under the governance
of Egypt, while the West Bank fell under the
control of Jordan. Nevertheless, as a
consequence of the Six-Day War, sovereignty
over both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
dramatically shifted into the hands of Israel,
altering the geopolitical landscape in the region.

69
 For more than a century now, there has been an
ongoing dispute surrounding the particular
regions of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, a
conflict that predates the establishment of Israel.
However, it was following the Six-Day War that
the animosity between Israelis and Palestinians
residing in these areas reached a persistently
high level, frequently culminating in outbreaks
of violence.

As Israel maintains complete control over the

entry points into both the Gaza Strip and the
West Bank, the Palestinians inhabiting these
territories find themselves living under a state of
military occupation and consequently subjected
to a range of restrictions imposed by the Israeli
authorities. These restrictions often leave them
reliant on external aid to meet their basic needs,
including access to essential provisions such as
food, water, and other supplies.

On Saturday, there was a significant increase in

fatalities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with
over 200 Israelis and 232 Palestinians losing

70
their lives. This escalation marked one of the
deadliest episodes in decades. In multiple
locations, intense gun battles erupted between
Israeli security forces and numerous fighters
from the Hamas group, creating a tumultuous
and dire situation. Recognizing the severity of
the situation, Israel's defense minister, Yoav
Gallant, made a strong statement today,
threatening to completely transform the reality in
Gaza. The escalation on Saturday resulted in a
devastating toll of over 300 Israeli casualties and
232 Palestinian fatalities.

This immense loss of life came as a direct

response to a massive onslaught initiated by the
Hamas group, which launched a barrage of
rockets and initiated a ground, air, and sea
offensive. Consequently, Israel felt compelled to
retaliate with a series of intense airstrikes.

In a video statement, Israeli defense minister

Yoav Gallant expressed his deep concern over
the recent heinous act committed by Hamas,
which he labeled as the manifestation of evil.

71
The attack, he stated, was carried out in a
non-discriminatory manner, showing no regard
for the lives of innocent women, children, or the
elderly. Gallant emphasized that Hamas, sooner
rather than later, will come to understand the
magnitude of their grave error.

He asserted that Israel is determined to alter the

situation on the ground in the Gaza Strip,
promising to reshape the very fabric of reality in
that region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has made a resolute promise,
expressing his determination to completely
obliterate the reinforced positions of Hamas in
the Gaza Strip, leaving them in ruins, during the
ongoing surge of the conflict.

Israel was bombarded by rockets coming from

Gaza starting at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, which
marked the culmination of months of escalating
violence in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. This conflict has been characterized by
numerous instances of bloodshed, but the West
Bank, which has been under Israeli occupation

72
since the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict, witnessed
an unusually high number of casualties during
this period. The relentless barrage of rockets
directed at Israel has reignited tensions that have
been simmering for months and have now
reached a critical point.

On the morning of Saturday, the 50th

anniversary of the commencement of the 1973
Arab-Israeli War, Prime Minister Netanyahu,
completely surprising the nation, boldly
proclaimed that Israel is currently engulfed in a
state of warfare. He passionately urged the
inhabitants of Gaza to swiftly evacuate their
surroundings, emphasizing the imminent and
widespread action that is about to be initiated. In
his fervent address, he made it clear that Israel
intends to retaliate with full force, leaving no
stone unturned.

He asserted that their strikes would persist

relentlessly until retribution was exacted for the
unfortunate and grim events that unfolded,
casting a shadow over the nation of Israel and its

73
populace. Joe Biden, the President of the United
States, reiterated his steadfast and unwavering
commitment to supporting Israel, an important
ally of the United States.

This affirmation comes at a time when the

United Nations Security Council has called for
an urgent meeting to address the ongoing crisis.
Additionally, President Biden issued a
cautionary statement, highlighting the need to
prevent any potential exploitation of this
situation by those who oppose Israel.

Chapter 3: Politics and Governance.

In Israel, the government operates under a

parliamentary democracy, where the system is
based on the principles of representation and
majority rule. This means that the people elect
their representatives to the Knesset, who in turn
form a government led by the Prime Minister.

74
The Prime Minister acts as the head of
government, responsible for making decisions
and leading the nation. Within this multi-party
system, the Prime Minister is chosen based on
the political party or coalition that is able to gain
the majority of seats in the Knesset. The
government, also referred to as the cabinet, holds
executive power and is responsible for
implementing policies and making day-to-day
decisions.

Legislative power, on the other hand, belongs to

the Knesset, Israel's legislative body. The
Knesset consists of elected representatives who
have the authority to create, pass, and amend
laws. These laws encompass various aspects of
the political system and its functioning.
However, it's important to note that Israel does
not possess a formal, written constitution, unlike
some other nations.

Another crucial aspect of Israel's political

system is the independence of the judiciary from
both the executive and legislative branches. This

75
separation ensures that the judicial system can
operate fairly and impartially, without
interference from political influences. It allows
for a checks-and-balances system, contributing
to the overall democratic nature of the Israeli
government.

To provide a comprehensive framework, Israel

has established 11 basic laws that outline the
fundamental principles and values of its political
system. These laws encompass a wide range of
aspects, including civil rights, the structure of
government institutions, the relationship
between religion and state, and individual
liberties. While not serving as a formal
constitution, these basic laws form the
foundations upon which the Israeli political
system operates.

In summary, the Israeli system of government is

grounded in parliamentary democracy, with the
Prime Minister as the head of government and
leader of a multi-party system. The government
holds executive power, while legislative power

76
is vested in the Knesset. The judiciary,
independent of the executive and legislative
branches, ensures the fair and impartial
administration of justice.

The political system of Israel is guided by 11

basic laws, which serve as a framework for its
functioning despite the absence of a written
constitution. In Israel, the political landscape is
greatly influenced by Zionist parties, which have
long been the prevailing forces. These parties
can generally be categorized into three main
factions, with the first two holding the majority
of seats.

The first faction is known as Labor Zionism,

which focuses on socialist principles and seeks
to establish a Jewish homeland. The second
faction, revisionist Zionism, leans towards a
more conservative ideology emphasizing
nationalistic values. The third major faction is
religious Zionism, which combines religious
beliefs with the Zionist cause.

77
 In addition to these Zionist parties, there are a
number of Orthodox religious parties that do not
align themselves with Zionism. These parties
prioritize their religious beliefs over the Zionist
movement. Similarly, there are secular left-wing
groups that do not identify as Zionists,
advocating instead for leftist ideologies without
a specific focus on Jewish nationalism.

Furthermore, there are also political parties

within the Israeli Arab community that neither
align with nor support the Zionist cause, some
even actively opposing it. The presence of
non-Zionist Orthodox religious parties within
the political spectrum highlights the diversity
and complexity of Israel's political landscape.

These parties cater to individuals who prioritize

their religious practices and beliefs over the
political ideology of Zionism. Such diversity
fosters a multi-faceted discourse and enriches
the political debate in Israel. Similarly, the
existence of non-Zionist secular left-wing groups
signifies that not all left-wing political

78
movements in Israel are guided by a Zionist
agenda. These groups promote progressive
ideologies, placing emphasis on social justice,
equality, and other principles not necessarily tied
to the Zionist cause.

This diversity within the left-wing sphere allows

for a broader spectrum of political perspectives
and a more vibrant political discourse. Lastly,
the presence of non-Zionist and anti-Zionist
Israeli Arab parties reflects the differing views
within the Israeli Arab community towards the
Zionist movement. While some Israeli Arab
parties are non-Zionist, indicating a lack of
alignment with the Zionist cause, others actively
oppose it, considering it detrimental to the rights
and aspirations of the Arab population in Israel.

This divergence of opinions not only showcases

the diversity within the Israeli Arab community
but also adds complexity to the overall political
landscape of the country. In comparison to other
nations, the Knesset elections witnessed an
extensive participation of political parties, which

79
is surprising given the country's population size.
This phenomenon has given rise to a legislature
that is characterized by its fractured nature,
wherein even smaller political entities manage to
secure seats in the Knesset.

As a consequence, no party has been able to

amass the required majority of 60+ seats
independently to establish a government on its
own. The political system in Israel offers
representation to fringe parties that uphold
unconventional beliefs, diverging from the
commonly accepted political and public
consensus.

This inclusivity allows for parties like the

Haredi religious parties to have a presence in the
Knesset. Additionally, there are parties that
advocate for national religious causes or have
specific, limited agendas, like Gil, which
championed the concerns of pensioners during
the 2006 elections.
Israeli political life is marked by a range of
significant problems and challenges that shape

80
the nation's political landscape. Some of these
issues include:

1. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and

the Arab-Israeli conflict have persisted for a
significant period, resulting in strained
relationships and numerous disputes.

2. The dynamics among different Jewish

religious movements play a crucial role in
shaping interactions within Israel.

3. Various discussions surround the essence of

Israel as a nation-state, particularly when it
comes to determining the extent to which it
should reflect Jewish religious values and
secular democratic principles.

4. The multifaceted Israeli economy and a range

of social issues are important aspects that require
careful examination and consideration.

81
Palestinian Authority and Governance
Structures.

The Palestinian National Authority, also known

as the Palestinian Authority and officially
referred to as the State of Palestine, is a
governmental body controlled by Fatah that
holds limited civil authority over areas "A" and
"B" of the West Bank. This authority stems from
the Oslo Accords, signed from 1993 to 1995.
Before the Palestinian elections of 2006 and the
subsequent conflict with Hamas, the Palestinian
Authority also held control over the Gaza Strip.

However, it lost control to Hamas, although the

Palestinian Authority still claims authority over
the region. It is worth noting that the United
Nations recognizes the Palestinian Liberation
Organization as the representative of the
Palestinian people, despite the Palestinian
Authority adopting the name "State of Palestine"
on official documents starting in January 2013.

82
In 1994, the establishment of the Palestinian
Authority came into effect following the
Gaza-Jericho Agreement, a pivotal agreement
between the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) and the Israeli government. Initially set to
serve as a temporary body for a period of five
years, the intention was for further negotiations
between the parties to determine its ultimate
status.

The Oslo Accords, a subsequent agreement,

stipulated that the Palestinian Authority would
have exclusive jurisdiction over security-related
and civilian matters within Palestinian urban
areas, commonly referred to as "Area A."
However, its authority would be limited to
civilian matters in Palestinian rural areas, known
as "Area B."

The control over the remaining territories,

including Israeli settlements, the Jordan Valley
region, and bypass roads connecting Palestinian
communities, would stay under Israeli
administration, designated as "Area C." Notably,

83
East Jerusalem was excluded from the
provisions of the Accords. Despite ongoing
negotiations with various Israeli governments,
the Palestinian Authority managed to increase its
control over certain areas.

Regrettably, during the upheaval of the Second

Intifada, the Israel Defense Forces regained
control over strategic positions, leading to the
loss of authority in certain regions.
Subsequently, in 2005, in the aftermath of the
Second Intifada, Israel independently withdrew
from its settlements in the Gaza Strip, granting
the Palestinian Authority complete control over
the entire strip.

However, Israel retained control over the

crossing points, airspace, and coastal waters of
the Gaza Strip. Hamas emerged as the victor in
the Palestinian legislative elections held on
January 25, 2006, ultimately selecting Ismail
Haniyeh to serve as the Prime Minister of the
Palestinian Authority.

84
Unfortunately, the hopes for a unified national
government were shattered when violent
conflicts between Hamas and Fatah erupted,
primarily within the Gaza Strip. The situation
escalated on June 14, 2007, when Hamas
successfully seized control of the Gaza Strip. In
response, the Chairman of the Palestinian
Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, took action by
dismissing the Hamas-led unity government and
appointing Salam Fayyad as the new Prime
Minister, effectively removing Haniyeh from
power.

However, this decision made by Abbas was not

accepted by Hamas, thus leading to the
establishment of two separate entities: the
Fatah-led Palestinian Authority governing the
West Bank and a rival Hamas administration
ruling over the Gaza Strip.

Throughout the years, there have been attempts

to reconcile these divisions and unite the
Palestinian governments, but these efforts have
ultimately proven unsuccessful in achieving a

85
re-unification. In 2005, the Palestinian Authority
received financial help from the European Union
and the United States, totaling approximately
US$1 billion.

However, the funding was put on hold on April

7, 2006, due to Hamas winning the
parliamentary elections. Following this, aid
payments were later resumed but redirected to
the offices of Mahmoud Abbas in the West
Bank. A significant shift occurred on January 9,
2009, as it marked the end of Abbas' presidential
term and was when elections were supposed to
be announced.

Nevertheless, supporters of Hamas and

numerous individuals residing in the Gaza Strip
decided to retract their recognition of Abbas'
presidency. Instead, they deemed Aziz Dweik,
the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative
Council, as the acting president until new
elections could take place.

86
 138 countries have acknowledged the existence
of the State of Palestine, and as of November
2012, the United Nations officially granted the
State of Palestine the status of a non-member
UN observer state. The recognition received
through these international platforms signifies
the growing acceptance and legitimacy of
Palestine in the international community.

The Palestinian Authority, which governs the

State of Palestine, has been operating under an
authoritarian regime for more than a decade. It
has failed to hold any elections for over 15
years, raising concerns about the lack of
democratic processes within the government.

This lack of electoral accountability has drawn

criticism from various quarters. Furthermore,
the Palestinian Authority has come under fire for
its alleged human rights violations. One area of
concern is its treatment of journalists, with
reports suggesting that journalists have faced
restrictions, censorship, and crackdowns on their
freedom to report on various issues.

87
This curbing of media freedom raises questions
about the authority's commitment to
transparency and accountability. Additionally,
human rights activists have faced difficulties and
hardships due to the authoritarian rule of the
Palestinian Authority. Their activities
challenging the authority's policies and practices
have been met with repression, leading to a
climate of fear and limited space for dissent
within the country.

This stifling of dissent undermines the principles

of democracy and freedom of expression. The
Palestinian Authority's approach to governance
has faced extensive criticism for its
infringements on democratic values and human
rights. The absence of regular elections can be
seen as a disregard for the fundamental right of
citizens to choose their leaders and hold them
accountable.

This lack of accountability may contribute to a

sense of disenfranchisement among the

88
Palestinian population. In order for the State of
Palestine to fully embrace democracy and
human rights, it is crucial that the Palestinian
Authority address these concerns. Implementing
reforms to ensure free and fair elections would
be a positive step towards establishing a more
inclusive and participatory political system.

Respecting the freedom of the press and the right

to dissent is also essential for fostering an open
and vibrant society. The international
community should continue to monitor the
situation in Palestine, encouraging the
Palestinian Authority to uphold its commitments
to democratic principles and human rights.

Engaging in dialogue and offering support for

reforms can serve as catalysts for positive
change. Ultimately, a more democratic and
rights-respecting state of Palestine will be better
equipped to address the needs and aspirations of
its people and contribute to regional stability.

89
International Mediation Efforts

Once again, the recent escalation in tensions

between Israel and Gaza highlights the crucial
significance of international backing for Israel in
order to put an end to the recurrent bouts of
conflict with Hamas.

Similar to previous instances, it was the

intervention of international mediators that
successfully facilitated a ceasefire between Israel
and Hamas. However, in contrast to previous
occasions where mediation effectively prevented
the outbreak of violence, this time it was unable
to avert the fighting. Notably, the current
mediation efforts proved to be more fruitful
compared to the 51-day-long Operation
Protective Edge in Gaza back in 2014, which
lacked the presence of mediators acceptable to
both parties involved.

The United States played a significant and

influential role in the mediation efforts of May
2021, which marked President Joe Biden's initial

90
venture into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Despite previously downplaying the issue, the
US government actively sought a victory and
aimed to be the mediator of the ceasefire.

In order to achieve this goal, the US government

obstructed three attempts made by members of
the UN Security Council to release a statement
during the ongoing conflict. This action exposed
the US to criticism from important global
players. Biden felt uneasy about receiving this
criticism as it contradicted his approach to
foreign policy, which emphasizes collaboration
with international organizations and alliances.

Despite the mixed dynamics in his

administration, President Biden offered his
support to Israel and granted them additional
time to carry out their military campaign against
Hamas. This support was given despite some
high-ranking officials within his administration
expressing criticism towards Israel's actions,
such as their demolition of the Gaza building
that housed foreign media organizations.

91
Furthermore, these officials have started to adopt
a novel rhetoric that emphasizes the equal rights
of both Israelis and Palestinians in terms of
security, freedom, and prosperity. The United
States assumed the leading role in facilitating
negotiations and actively sought recognition for
its efforts.

President Biden, along with Secretary of State

Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin,
maintained constant communication with their
Israeli counterparts. To further enhance their
mediation endeavors, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State Hady Amr embarked on his inaugural
visit to the region. Furthermore, the United
States collaborated closely with Arab states to
ensure a coordinated approach to the mediation
process.

Secretary Blinken consistently provided updates

on the ongoing discussions, engaging in almost
daily communication with counterparts from
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, Morocco, and Qatar.

92
 It was Egypt, as anticipated, that ultimately
secured the ceasefire, reflecting its status as a
key ally of the United States. Conversely, Qatar,
which had played a significant mediating role in
prior episodes of violence, had a lesser impact
this time around. Similarly, the United Nations
envoy, who had previously filled the void left by
the Trump administration on behalf of the
United States, played a less prominent role.

Regrettably, the European Union once again

struggled to overcome internal divisions and
present a unified stance. The positive outcome of
the United States' active participation in recent
events is undoubtedly uplifting for Israel.
Previously, the strained relationship between the
Trump administration and the Palestinians
resulted in the American government's absence
from mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, this lack of involvement not only

hindered the prospects of achieving peace but
also destabilized the region. However, President
Biden's recent accomplishments in this matter,

93
which he enthusiastically acknowledged during a
special address delivered from the esteemed
White House, might serve as a significant
turning point that encourages further American
engagement in advancing the peace process.

It is evident that the recent escalations in

violence compelled the administration to
recognize the urgency of appointing senior
diplomats who can effectively address the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. Consequently, this
necessitates the presence of qualified
representatives from both the US Embassy and
Consulate in Jerusalem, as well as from the State
Department in Washington.

President Biden's comments after the ceasefire

revealed two noteworthy points concerning the
future policy of his administration. The first
point emphasized the intention to undertake
humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Gaza,
with a crucial emphasis on collaborating
exclusively with the Palestinian Authority (PA)
rather than Hamas.

94
 This stance clearly indicates the United States'
desire to increase the involvement and influence
of the PA in Gaza. Notably, this approach
conflicts with Netanyahu's consistent efforts to
encourage the divide between the PA in the West
Bank and Hamas in Gaza. By doing so,
Netanyahu aims to weaken the PA and hinder the
establishment of a Palestinian state.

It remains uncertain how this US policy will

impact the agreement between Netanyahu and
Hamas, which included Qatari payments to the
organization. Biden's second point revolves
around his vision for the future, and although he
did not explicitly mention the term "two-state
solution," his administration remains dedicated
to it. Instead, he emphasized the need for both
Israelis and Palestinians to have equal rights to
security, freedom, prosperity, and democracy.

This language has been consistently used in

official statements since he assumed office,
introducing new parameters that go beyond the
traditional discourse surrounding the two-state

95
solution. However, it is important to note that
these parameters neither contradict nor replace
the existing framework but rather highlight the
United States' commitment to the rights of both
parties involved.

Biden believes that a genuine opportunity for

progress in the Israeli-Palestinian arena has
emerged, and he is determined to seize it. It is
interesting to observe that these remarks contrast
with the initial months of his administration,
during which there was a sense of skepticism
regarding the possibility of achieving a
breakthrough in the resolution of the conflict.

The recent episode of conflict served as a

reminder of the consequences brought upon by
the prolonged impasse in diplomatic negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians. Those
advocating for peace within Israel, the
Palestinian Authority, and the United States
should find solace in the fact that the US has
resumed its role as a mediator.

96
 Secretary of State Blinken's ongoing visit to the
Middle East, marking his inaugural trip in this
capacity, presents an opportune moment for
these advocates to convey to the US
administration that its active participation is both
desired and indispensable.

They should emphasize that the administration

must now take further strides in advancing
comprehensive diplomatic initiatives aimed at
achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace, extending
beyond their current commitment to
strengthening the ceasefire agreement with
Gaza.

Chapter 4: The Search for Solutions.

The concept of a "two-state solution" is widely

acknowledged as the most probable resolution to
the ongoing conflict. Essentially, this entails the
establishment of an independent Palestinian state
encompassing the territories of the West Bank
and Gaza.

97
Notably, Egypt has never asserted its permanent
sovereignty over Gaza, considering its
administration there to be only temporary until a
Palestinian state is created. Similarly, Jordan
relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988,
further supporting the notion of a two-state
solution.

Fatah, one of the key factions in Palestinian

politics, is in favor of this proposal. On the other
hand, Hamas, its rival group, holds a more
extremist stance. According to Hamas, their
vision envisions the entirety of the current state
of Israel, including the occupied Palestinian
territories (OPTs), as part of a future Palestinian
state. Additionally, Hamas has a notorious track
record of carrying out acts of terrorism targeting
innocent Israeli civilians.

In pursuit of the ultimate goal of establishing

two separate states, multiple rounds of
discussions have taken place in recent times
between the Israeli and Palestinian governments.

98
These dialogues aim to address the ongoing
conflict and pave the way for a mutually
agreed-upon solution. In August 2013, a new
round of discussions was initiated, facilitated by
John Kerry, the Secretary of State of the United
States. However, these negotiations eventually
fell apart in April 2014 due to the actions taken
by Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the
Palestinian Authority and the leading figure of
Fatah, who opted to sign a reconciliation
agreement with Hamas.

Israel strongly objected to this agreement and

consequently withdrew from the talks as a form
of protest. After the negotiations fell apart, the
situation between Israel and Palestine
deteriorated even further throughout the
remainder of 2014. In a significant escalation,
Israel initiated a comprehensive military
intervention in Gaza on July 7th as a response to
the ongoing rocket attacks from Hamas.

99
 The tense and violent atmosphere persisted until
August 26th, when a ceasefire agreement was
finally reached, officially putting an end to the
hostilities. In the midst of the violent
confrontation, a total of 65 Israeli soldiers, along
with four Israeli civilians, tragically lost their
lives.

Additionally, one foreign individual within the

borders of Israel also fell victim to the conflict.
Such a devastating toll was eclipsed by the much
higher number of casualties suffered by the
Palestinian people. The United Nations reports
indicate a staggering figure of 2,104 Palestinians
who perished during this period of turmoil,
among them, 1,462 innocent civilians.

As an integral component of the peace

agreement, Israel has consented to easing a
certain number of the constraints it has imposed
on Gaza since 2007 due to security concerns.
These restrictions were initially implemented
following the forceful takeover of Gaza by
Hamas.

100
 Until Hamas and Fatah reached a reconciliation
agreement, complete control over the territory
was retained by Hamas. Although certain
limitations have been eased, numerous
restrictions still persist. One notable example of
such restrictions is that the majority of ordinary
Gazans are generally denied permission to exit
the territory. The agreement for a ceasefire also
included provisions for Egypt to mediate indirect
discussions between Israel, Hamas, and the
Palestinian Authority (PA).

These talks, although narrower in their goals

compared to the failed direct negotiations of
April 2014, currently serve as the sole chance to
make significant advancements towards a
resolution. The implications of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict extend to the United
Kingdom, prompting various voices to urge the
UK government to acknowledge the Palestinian
Authority as an official "state."

101
According to international legal principles, the
recognition of statehood relies on specific
criteria, such as the presence of a well-defined
territory and a functioning governmental system.
At this moment, it is evident that the Palestinian
Authority does not fulfill these requirements.
Unless a consensus is reached on a two-state
resolution, the Palestinian Authority will remain
incapable of meeting these standards.
Nevertheless, individual nations possess the
power to express their endorsement of
Palestinian statehood if they desire.

This action holds significant meaning as it

symbolically exhibits support for the Palestinian
cause. While advocates supporting the
Palestinian cause urge the United Kingdom to
acknowledge the statehood of Palestine, those
advocating for Israel have expressed
apprehensions regarding the UK's aid initiative
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs).

102
This aid program encompasses two significant
elements: firstly, it involves the allocation of
funds to UNRWA, a United Nations agency that
provides assistance to impoverished Palestinians.
Additionally, it entails providing financial
support to the Palestinian Authority. The
controversial aspect lies in the latter argument.
There are individuals who assert that the
Palestinian Authority has displayed excessive
leniency towards Palestinian militant groups,
thus advocating for the discontinuation of UK
funding.

Conversely, there are those who believe that this

funding is warranted as a viable Palestinian
authority and serves as an essential prerequisite
for achieving a two-state resolution.

Historical Attempts at Peace.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a series

of on-and-off negotiations and suggestions that
have been made by different groups in an
endeavor to find a resolution for the continuous

103
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An additional effort
has also been made since the 1970s to establish
common grounds for peace in both the
Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts.
While certain nations have successfully signed
peace treaties, like the Egypt-Israel and
Jordan-Israel treaties, others have yet to discover
a shared foundation on which to do so.

According to the opening remarks made by

William B. Quandt in his insightful publication
entitled Peace Process, the author highlights the
following points: During the mid-1970s, the
expression "peace process" gained widespread
usage to describe the endeavors led by America
to achieve a negotiated peace agreement
between Israel and its neighboring countries.
Over time, this phrase became firmly established
and has since been closely connected with the
gradual and sequential approach utilized to
address one of the most intricate conflicts in the
world.

104
 Throughout the years following 1967, there has
been a change in focus within the United States
government from emphasizing the components
necessary for achieving "peace" to spotlighting
the actual "process" of attaining it. In essence,
the United States has not only provided a sense
of guidance but has also developed a mechanism
to facilitate these peace efforts. In its most
positive form, this is the ultimate objective of the
peace process. However, during its worst
moments, it has merely served as a catchphrase
employed to conceal the unproductive passage
of time.

Ever since the release of the road map for peace

in 2003, the proposed framework for achieving
peace between Palestine and Israel has revolved
around the idea of establishing two separate
states. However, in the subsequent years, there
have been various interpretations of this solution
by Israeli and American authorities, some of
which suggest the creation of Palestinian
enclaves that are not geographically connected
to one another.

105
Prospects for a Sustainable Resolution

A significant and threatening dual dilemma is

unfolding in the region stretching from the
Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Within this
area, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority
find themselves grappling with internal
predicaments that are casting ominous
uncertainties on their respective destinies.

Moreover, the escalating tensions between these

two parties are rapidly approaching a critical
juncture, further exacerbating the precarious
situation at hand. Benjamin Netanyahu has once
again risen to prominence in Israel through his
collaboration with extreme ultra-Orthodox and
right-wing parties.

These alliances have a specific agenda:

transforming the fundamental structure of
Israel's constitutional system. This new
government is currently pushing forward with
initiatives that seek to inject politics into the
judiciary and weaken its authoritative

106
capabilities. Furthermore, it poses a significant
risk of completely eradicating any remaining
hope of attaining a viable and long-lasting
resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
squashing the prospects of a two-state solution
indefinitely.

In the meantime, there has been a significant

uprising among Israelis, who have flooded the
streets in large numbers to express their
discontent with the government's suggestions.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, in a recent speech
where he presented his own set of instructions to
resolve the crisis, highlighted the alarming
possibility of a civil war, stressing that it should
not be ignored.

Shockingly, Netanyahu's administration swiftly

dismissed the proposed directive mere moments
after it was made public, leaving scarce hope for
a resolution. If no extraordinary turn of events
occurs, Israel is poised to plunge into its most
profound internal political turmoil since its
establishment. The outcome of this tumultuous

107
period is uncertain, raising doubts about the
future identity of the Israeli nation. The Oslo
Accords, which once held promise for resolving
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing
frameworks and pathways for a two-state
solution, have now become a thing of the past.

Both extremist factions on both sides have

persistently challenged this peace process since
its inception, but their influence and power have
never been as prevalent as they are today. The
gradual decline that has persisted over the years
is now accelerating at an alarming rate,
effectively obliterating any remnants of the Oslo
Accords' historical significance.

What currently remains is a mere shadow of the

once-solid foundation that the accords erected.
Regrettably, the majority of Israelis appear to
have lost interest in the affairs of the occupied
Palestinian territories, prioritizing their own
security above all else. In contrast to the
situation in Israel, where the high separation
barrier has created a sense of urgency, the

108
Palestinian Authority (PA) is facing a legitimacy
crisis that may be perceived as less pressing.
Recent surveys have indicated that a significant
majority of Palestinians have become
disillusioned with the PA and are inclined
towards its abolition.

The government led by PA President Mahmoud

Abbas has failed to deliver peace or economic
prosperity, leaving Palestinians disheartened. As
they witness the expansion of illegal Israeli
settlements encroaching upon their lands and
endure the daily humiliations imposed by the
occupation regime, there is a growing inclination
among Palestinians to lend their support to those
advocating armed resistance.

These emerging patterns of behavior from both

factions pose a considerable danger, as they have
the potential to initiate a destructive and
never-ending pattern of violence and hostility.
The consequences of such a cycle are projected
to be much more severe than the sporadic and
intense outbursts seen in the Gaza region, which

109
have, regrettably, become somewhat
commonplace. Furthermore, compounding the
issue is the prevalent weariness surrounding the
Middle East peace process in the realm of global
diplomacy.

Numerous Arab nations have understandably

diverted their attention elsewhere, establishing
their own political and economic connections
with Israel. Meanwhile, the European Union,
preoccupied with Russia's relentless
bombardment of Ukrainian civilians, finds itself
less coherent internally when it comes to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if it weren't
facing a war along its borders.

Similarly, despite the continuous endorsement

of a two-state solution by President Joe Biden's
administration in the United States, they have
not yet taken any action to overturn the perilous
and unlawful measures carried out by Donald
Trump's administration.

110
 Under Trump's administration, which saw a
strong affinity with Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu, the conditions necessary for
achieving a two-state solution were further
eroded. As a result, it is not surprising that a
growing number of Palestinians have been
overwhelmed by feelings of hopelessness and
desolation. With the onset of the holy month of
Ramadan (March 22–April 20) and the
celebration of Passover (April 5–13), a period of
intense emotions and heightened tensions is
anticipated.

Regrettably, the West Bank has already

witnessed a distressing number of fatalities,
exceeding a hundred, resulting from multiple
clashes this year alone. Tragically, innocent
civilians from both sides have also become
victims of brutal terrorist acts. The prevailing
sentiment among many is that the foreseeable
future holds even greater bleakness, as the
situation is expected to deteriorate in the coming
weeks and months.

111
The era of Oslo has become distant and
outdated. Without a significant reevaluation and
rearrangement of the key matters involved, the
chances of achieving peace again seem
uncertain. Hence, the crucial query arises: can
the once-dormant field of international
diplomacy be revitalized? The probable
consequence as lead to the eruption of severe
violence and potentially an extended period of
warfare.

112