Israel and the Palestinians: A Brief History of a Long Struggle Over a Small Patch of Land
The Jewish Diaspora lessened the problem temporarily, but a full scale movement of Jews from Europe to the Palestine began to rise in the latter half of the 19th century. By the beginning of World War I there were already 80,000 Jews in the area. In 1936 Lord Peel of Britain led an investigation to examine the question of Palestine. The final recommendation of that investigation called for establishment of a Jewish state in a region totaling less than a fifth of the totality of Palestine. The rest of the area would have been linked to Transjordan but for a smaller part that would have stayed under the control of the British. One of these parts would have been the city of Jerusalem. Another recommendation called for removal of the entire Arab population in the Jewish area, by force if necessary. Looking ahead to forging a larger area of out this small offering, the Zionist leaders okayed the proposed state, while the Arabs immediately rejected it. Although two other plans for partition were taken into consideration, eventually it all came to naught.
Perhaps nothing involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so controversial and difficult to achieve consensus on as restitution of land to the Palestinians. The question of Palestinian land restitution goes back to the very moment it was decided to establish a Jewish state in Israel. That decision was in turn prompted by World War II. This claim to land has been made by the Palestinian Authority in the name of all those who were displaced from their homeland amidst the settlement of the nation of Israel in 1948 and the resulting wars that have marked the area ever since. Following WWI, even more Jews moved to Palestine, and the rise of Hitler and his persecution policy upped the ante even more.
Hitler alone cannot bear the full brunt of the problem, however. Many point to the restrictive British immigration policy as playing a major role in the development of the current day problem. In addition, one aspect of that policy was also found to be thoroughly unacceptable by the Arabs: partitioning. The immigration issue was further highlighted by when the World Zionist Congress demanded that one million Jews be admitted to Palestine after WWII. Obviously, this shook the Arab countries to their very core. The formation of the Arab League of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Jordan was overseen by Great Britain with a benevolent eye in the hope that pan-Arabism could lead to a coordinated policy that would have a settling effect on the region. In February of 1947, the British took the problem of Palestine to the UN, resulting in the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The result was exactly what had been feared the most: recommendation of a country to be partitioned between Jews and Palestinians. The response of Great Britain was what conservative politicians in America today would call “cut and run” as they swiftly removed themselves from the region before it jeopardized its position among the Arab nations, or got caught up in turmoil that was clearly on the horizon. That turmoil was expressed through acts of terrorism from both Israelis and Palestinians. Finally, Great Britain did withdraw, on the very day that Israel achieved its independence, May 14, 1948.
The newly independent nation of Israel was recognized by the United States sixteen minutes after its foundation, followed quickly afterward by the USSR. Almost immediately, Israel was set upon by Egyptian armies. Meanwhile, Jordan and Iraq forces supported Palestinian Arabs in the territory in their calls for land reclamation. During this Israeli battle to retain its independence, on December 11, 1948, the United Nations addressed the refugee issue in Resolution 194, stating that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible . . . .the Conciliation Commission should facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation.”
More than that, Resolution 194 also was quite explicit in limiting repatriation only to “those refugees wishing to return to their homes and to live at peace with their neighbors” What is genuinely amazing about Resolution 194 is that it has been passed by the United Nations almost 30 times since it was initially drawn in 1948 and each time Israel has ignored it and disallowed all legal bases upon which it is based. (For those who keep count of such things, this is more often than the number of times that Iraq ignored UN resolutions; the ignoring of UN resolutions was one of the many justifications used by Pres. Bush for his war in Iraq.)
None of the Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq) that were engaged in battles with Israel in 1948 signed any agreement to a peace treaty when the hostilities ended, nor did any organization that spoke in the name of Palestinian refugees ever express any goal of living at peace with Israel. Not even the promises delivered with such high hopes and expectations after the 1993 Oslo Accords promised any commitment to the sort of peaceful coexistence necessary in arriving at even a partial repatriation.
Included among those Palestinians wishing to take advantage of land restitution are not just those residents living in abject poverty in UN refugee camps, but rich businessmen living in luxury across the world. This truth emboldens the argument against land restitution for many. The fact is that many of those latching onto the issue have never even visited the land they so fervently call their own. Of course, it’s quite possible to maintain truly authentic and deeply felt connections to one’s ancestral homeland without having been there; witness the fact that many in the US attach a hyphen to their ancestral homeland when describing themselves. If one can bother with calling himself an African-American or Italian-American despite the fact that not even his grandfather ever set foot in the country at the root of the hyphen, then it is too much to expect that Palestinians who’ve never set foot in Palestine feel a true connection to the place? In addition, there is the fact that many of these people were born to ancestors who fled Palestine against their will over 50 years ago in the heat of battle. Some Palestinians go so far as to stake out a firmer hold to their homeland than did the Jews returning after the Diaspora because the time period is so substantially shorter.
Those who resist this argument insist that the Palestinians are simply and stubbornly refusing to accept Israel’s right to control its destiny, i.e., allowing whoever wants to settle within the territories controlled by the country. This refusal is linked to the Arab refusal to recognize Jewish control of any territory anywhere in the Middle East and because of this steadfast refusal, the position has always been among Arab nations that all Jewish settlements are fair game for destruction and uprooting.
In its defense, it must be stated that Israel has shown a willingness for some efforts at Palestinian repatriation, as in 1949 when the Israeli government headed by David Ben-Gurion accepted the figure of 100,000 returning refugees. So there is some precedence to suggest that the issue of limited resettlement of Palestinians in Israel is open for negotiation, provided agreement can be reached on a long process of legal claims and monetary issues. Whether that agreement can ever be reached is itself open to negotiation, of course. One reason for the difficulty is that any agreement that may be reached will also likely have to address the possibility of redress for damages to those Jewish refugees who themselves were forced to flee Arab countries and settle in Israel.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, and its precepts are the basis for current and future negotiations. That resolution calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem.” The terminology is purposely vague with “refugee” in place of Palestinian or Arab people in particular. The Zionists take that wording as proof that any restitution and compensation will and must include Jewish refugees as well as Palestinian.
If all who are claiming descendency from the Palestinian Diaspora following the recognition of Israeli nationhood were to be allowed to return, the population of Israel would explode. It is estimated that Israel’s population would grow by at least half and, further, increase the Arab population of the country by up 40% at least. In addition to this overwhelming change in population, Israel would have to give up new territory so that a sovereign Palestinian state could be established in order to hold the influx. Given the past history of Israel and their resistance to the very concept of a Palestinian state on their border, not to mention the probability of having to divide and share the city of Jerusalem, it is highly doubtful that Palestinian land restitution will ever take place. If past history is indication, it is quite clear that the possibility of an Israeli government ever coming into power that would be willing to make such conciliatory moves is simply a pipedream and nothing more. There are just simply too many obstacles and challenges that must be overcome. In addition, the Palestinians have historically been too steadfast in their refusal to negotiate on the concept of Right to Return. The issue has been faced for over fifty years and it’s quite likely that in another fifty years it will be still remain unsolved.
