ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 1

THE ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFLICT;

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE PEACE?
Cory Carbone
ENC 1102-A003
Dr. Guenzel
June 19, 2014










ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 2
Abstract
In the present state of World affairs, it can arguably be said that there is no greater political
tension than that which exists in the Holy Land. The research paper will seek to investigate the
ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, discuss the premise for it, and will examine what is being
done to try and bring peace to a land plagued by constant fighting and war. Both sides of the
conflict have suffered tremendous losses in both human life and in their security. As of Spring
2014 there have been several previous attempts to reach a peace agreement, and so far none have
succeeded. The author begin by providing a basic background of what the conflict is, trace some
major events, which have shaped it, and what each side is looking to accomplish in the future
under any deal. Next, I will outline the previous attempts for peace and what the outcome of each
was. Once this foundation has been laid, the author will then examine the agendas and positions
of my three perspectives, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations. Moving
on from there, the paper will conclude with research findings and discuss what the current
situation dictates for the future of these two peoples.









ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 3
The Israeli Palestinian Conflict: What will it take to make peace?
The origins of this conflict like everything involved in this topic is a debate up for discussion.
Some say that the conflict began in 1917 when the British signed the Balfour Declaration stating
the favor of His Majestys government in establishing a national home for the Worlds Jewish
peoples in what was their Mandate of Palestine post World War I. Others will say that it began
when an Austrian journalist named Theodore Herzl created a political concept in his 1896 book
titled Der Judenstaat, which he called Zionism, foreseeing the creation of an independent
Jewish State in their ancestral homeland of Judea, in present day Israel. Yet most historians and
scholars agree that officially the fires of this conflict had their spark in 1947 when the United
Nations voted 33 for, 13 against, with 10 abstentions to partition the British mandate into a
Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian State. The Jews immediately accepted this proposal, while
the Arabs absolutely refused this division and the idea of a Jewish State entirely.
What came next would turn the World on its head, when on May 14, 1948 in the City of Tel
Aviv, a man who would later become the first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, declared the
establishment of a Jewish State to be known as Israel. From this day forward, everything
changed! The very next day, four neighboring Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan, Trans-Syria and
Iraq invaded Israel and sought to destroy this newly founded Jewish State in the Middle East.
Hostilities lasted until January of 1949 when Egypt formally left Israel, and against all odds the
Jewish State remained intact despite being heavily outnumbered and underequipped. This
engagement would later be known as the Israel War of Independence or the Arab-Israeli War,
depending on which side you are on. The next major event that transpired was the Six Day War
of June 1967. Egypt, fully re-supplied and rejuvenated after their last Israeli endeavor conspires
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 4
to plan a surprise attack on Israel, but Israeli forces pre-emptively strike them before any attacks
took place. The result was a crippling blow to the Egyptian forces, which stopped them from
moving further.
However soon after, the Jordanian army began their attack in Jerusalem, invading from the
east opposite the Egyptians. Like the Egyptians though, their tactics were in vain when in three
days time, the Israelis had captured all of East Jerusalem and the entirety of the West Bank from
the Jordanians. Syria likewise attacked from the north, and also suffered defeat, losing the Golan
Heights in the process which Israel still holds to this day. It was not until a United Nations
ceasefire was implemented that the War had come to an end literally in six days of fighting!
After the Six-Day War, came the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, as a result of lost Arab
lands in the previous Six Day War, which they wanted back. Both Egypt and Syria attacked the
Israelis by complete surprise on their holiest day of the year Yom Kippur also known as the
Day of Atonement, hence the name of the war. After about 18 days of fighting, hostilities ended
in a virtual stalemate and the United Nations once again stepped in to negotiate a ceasefire.
It was not until 1978-1979 that the first steps in peace were made between Israel and another
Arab Nation, when in March of 1979 the Camp David Accords were signed between Presidents
Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel with the intervention and assistance of
United States President Jimmy Carter who had invited them for the talks. In return for a peace
with Israel and an end to a state of hostilities, Egypt was given back the entirety of the occupied
Sinai Peninsula, which they had lost in the Six Day war. Three years later in 1972, Israel went on
the offensive for the first time in its history. Dealing with many attacks from the northern border
with Lebanon from the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O), the Israeli army invaded
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 5
Lebanon and had reached as far as the Capital city of Beirut where they had all but trapped the
P.L.O and Syrian forces encamped there. It wasnt until 1983 when the United States intervened
that the Israeli Army made a gradual withdrawal out of Lebanon and back into Israel.
During the mid to late 1980s, the first Palestinian intifada, or uprising began. At this point
in the conflict, the Palestinians began seeing themselves in a more Nationalistic way and started
demanding on the international stage a Palestinian State and the right of self determination based
off of the United Nations Charter. Also at this time, the Israelis had begun constructing the
extremely controversial settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which infuriated the Palestinians
and heightened tensions. They remain a sticking point to the present day. In reaction, two
militant rebel and many would say terrorist groups formed in an effort to end perceived Israeli
occupation of their lands. One was called Hezbollah Party of G-d based in Southern Lebanon,
and the other was Hamas, an ultra radical right wing Islamic group who wanted to liberate
Palestine from Jewish control based off of Muslim laws. The result of this intifada was rioting
and protesting on a decent scale in both the West Bank and Gaza, which in turn saw the Israelis
close the borders entirely which in effect drove the Palestinian economy into a terrible place. In
the end there were numerous casualties on both sides.
In 1988, the Palestinians did what the Israelis had done forty years earlier. They declared their
Independence with a State made up of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank territories and with
P.L.O Leader Yasser Arafat as their President. All of the Arab states immediately recognized the
Palestinian State, as did the Soviet Union and several others. The United States however refused
their recognition upon them but still kept the diplomatic channels open for discourse with Yasser
Arafat. Then in 1993, something unprecedented took place, which forever changed the dynamic
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 6
of the conflict. The Oslo Accords were held between P.L.O Leader and Palestinian President
Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Oslo, Norway. This meeting produced
a declaration of principles which was later signed in Washington D.C. in the presence of
United States President Bill Clinton. It signified the first time that Israel and the Palestinians had
reached any kind of deal or had even recognized one another!
The result of these accords was the withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip, mutual recognition of each others sovereignty including Israels right of
existence and Palestines right to determine their future as a Nation. Despite the substantial
progress gained by this accord, there was one tragic result when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
payed the forfeit of his life in his efforts to make peace when he was gunned down and
assassinated by a radical Jew in Tel Aviv named Yigal Amir while attending a peace rally to
mark the accords in 1995. His death marked a turning point for both sides and for the conflict as
a whole. Three years later in 1998, the Wye Accords were signed between Yasser Arafat and the
new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Essentially this deal followed the formula of
Israeli withdrawal from more occupied land in return for Palestinians striking specific anti-Israel
clauses from their National Charter and vowing to speak against terrorism. However, Netanyahu
did not feel that the Palestinians honored the deal to its entirety as agreed and ended up removing
Israel from the negotiating table.
One year later in 1999, Ehud Barak won the election for Prime Minister of Israel, with his
campaign involving the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians as his platform. And with
that he eventually signs an agreement with Yasser Arafat with a time frame no later than
September of 2000 to produce a Final Peace Treaty between Israel and Palestine. At this point,
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 7
everyone was optimistic that a lasting peace was in reach. The final piece of this conflicts
present time line is the now infamous Camp David Accords of 2000 held at the U.S. Presidential
Retreat and hosted by President Bill Clinton between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak. But when
the deadline for a Final Treaty was approaching and nothing seemed to be getting done or
signed, the three of these Leaders spent two straight weeks at Camp David trying to hash out a
Final Peace Agreement but unfortunately to no avail. The main issues which could not be
resolved, were the status of Israeli settlers in the Palestinian Territories, Palestinian refugees who
had been displaced, as well as the status of the City of Jerusalem and who would get which parts.
After what was suppose to be the final peace agreement to put an end to decades of violence, war
and bloodshed, the whole effort since Oslo fell to shambles, and the second Palestinian Intifada
began anew when staunch right wing Israeli politician General Ariel Sharon made a
controversial visit to the top of the Temple Mount.
The United States of America
The United States has perhaps been the most influential in the midst of the conflict my three
perspectives when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Historically, it must be noted that
the United States did vote in favor of the United Nations partition plan in 1947 when the idea of
a Jewish State was on the table. Since that time, America has always considered Israel as one of
its best allies, its only true ally in the Middle East and a substantial trading partner economically.
Even more so to this alliance are the large amount of monetary aid and the military partnership,
which the two of them collaborate on extensively. Yet all those details being said, in the present
context of the conflict, the United States government, especially under the present administration
of Barack Obama has become more pressuring on Israel to reach an agreement with the
Palestinians by bending on
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 8
some concessions. And the United states also is in favor of the establishment of an independent
Palestinian State in line with what has been coined The Two-State Solution.
What must also be considered when discussing the relationship the United States has in this
conflict is the fact that when you look at the overall picture of the events that have unfolded,
America has stepped in more times than any other government to help reach peace agreements
between Israel and Arabs, has stepped in more times to promote ceasefires during battle, and has
also mediated negotiations more often as well! Which makes the case that out of the three
perspectives, America actually has a much more substantial impact in trying to create a solution
and a peace agreement. And in reality, the only two peace treaties ever signed between Israel and
an Arab nation was both attributed to two different United States Presidents playing middleman.
The fact of the matter is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have equal trust in the U.S. as
an honest broker between them despite the fact that the favor is more weighted to the Israeli side
because of the long-standing alliance.
After the Camp David accords of 1979 were signed between Israel and Egypt, it became a
policy for the U.S. to send over to the Middle East upper level diplomats including numerous
Secretaries of State with the serious task of trying to get an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue opened
for the first time, a major dimension of American foreign policy. This policy would end up
paying dividends when in 1994, The Oslo Accords were officially signed in Washington D.C. at
the White House in front of Bill Clinton. After this occasion, America started changing the way
they approached the conflict than in the previous years. Under the Clinton administration, the
United States maintained its close ties with Israel, but with diplomatic savvy started to approach
the Palestinians and gain their trust a bit more. The first step to this was when President Clinton
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 9
became the first American official or Leader to address the Palestinian Legislative Council based
in Gaza.
Succeeding Clinton in the White House was President George W. Bush who took over in
2000. Though a passionate supporter of Israel and the Jewish people, he became the first
President to officially endorse the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state to live
next to the Jewish state of Israel. But then after the Second intifada began in 2002, the Bush
administration began having a change of heart with the Palestinians and American foreign policy
shifted right back to heavily supporting the Israeli camp. This was a vast change in scenery from
the Clinton days when Arafat would visit on numerous occasions, and under Bush was labeled as
a common terrorist. What came next would be a serious miscalculation and shock for the
American position in the conflict. President Bush had championed free and open elections in
Palestine as a precedent to try and rid them of Arafat and Hamas, both of whom the U.S. counted
as official sponsors of terrorism. However, when the Palestinians did hold elections eventually,
they democratically elected Hamas in Gaza as their official government! As time progressed, the
Bush administration became less attached to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The tide had turned
away from their conflict when the larger focus was given to our ongoing war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Under the current Obama administration, the United States role in the conflict has taken an
interesting turn. Unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, Barack Obama was willing to engage
with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank in order to talk about the issues preventing
further dialogue. He has always been in favor of renewed peace talks ever since gaining the
White House. However, his position on the conflict is one of continued support for the strong
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 10
alliance with Israel while also acting in many ways with favor towards the Palestinians. Obama
has gained much controversy for himself among the American public and with Israelis due to
some of his comments, which are nearly a complete flip from the Bush years. Essentially
American involvement went from almost complete and absolute support towards the Israelis with
a breakdown in communication with the Palestinians to now asking the Israelis to make
significant concessions to the Palestinians who are losing ground and leverage with every
passing day.
In short, Obamas decision to create a deeper conversation with the Palestinian leadership has
cost him a lot in public perception, but it is clear that he is continuing a precedent set by Clinton.
A controversial remark he made recently was that any future negotiations between the two sides
should be based off of the pre 1967 Six Day War borders. And coming from myself, a writer
who travels to Israel frequently, there are no public figure more despised than he is at the present
time.
Second Perspective: The European Union
The European Union has a lot of similarities to the United States. Not just in the way their
government functions, but also in their foreign policy agenda in the conflict. On a governmental
level, the European Union functions like the United States in that it exists as a federation of
states with one central government acting as the higher power. The only difference is that with
the United States, the subsidiary fifty states are all inferior to the National government in
Washington D.C. While in the E.U. all of its member states are still Independent Nations who are
members of the European Union on a voluntary basis, but still relegate a fair amount of authority
and power to the Central government building in Brussels, Belgium.

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 11
Why mention this fact? Because unlike the United States that have one single foreign policy
when it comes to Israel and Palestine, the European Union has 28 Member States who each still
control their own foreign policies on a National level! Thus, the European Union cannot issue
any policy statement or manifesto as an organization that makes or takes too many liberties with
their words. The reality of their supranational government is that it is next to impossible to gain a
consensus opinion on an issue that is so divisive especially in a place such as Europe, where the
words Israel and Palestine can stir emotions depending on what country or even city you are in.
Every one of those member states exists as an interest group within a government and deal
making and favor trading is the way things get done. The next idea that explains the core of
where Europe stands in the workings of trying to put together a peace deal as an entity, is that
they are in direct competition with the United States with everything imaginable!
In todays World, the European Union is fast becoming the new kid on the power block in the
International stage. Their unprecedented rise in influence and monetary might has truly made
them Americas main competition across the pond. What comes along with this struggle for who
has the best economy and who has the best standard of living is also who has the most power
and influence over critical issues like the Middle Eastern region. Politics seldom exists without
pride or ego, and as it stands right now with this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Europe is playing
second fiddle to the United States when it comes to taking the lead role as mediator and
middleman during any and all negotiations amongst the two sides. This being the case though,
the European Union still takes a vested interest in this conflict all the same and considers the
security and stability of that region as critical as their own E.U. zone.

I
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 12
As far as where the European Union stands on the issue today, like the United States they are
also in favor of the two-state solution and support the idea of a Palestinian State next to Israel
whereby both Nations sovereignties are upheld. On the hot button issues which are always
discussed in any negotiations past or present, some they are in agreement with the United States,
while on others they are in disagreement. On the issue of Borders for example, they feel that they
should be based on the 1967 lines, which favor the Palestinians. The Israeli settlements issue
they also side with the Palestinians in that they are worried about rapid growth of them and cite
that they violate International law. With the status of the city of Jerusalem, they take a vague
position only citing in their official position manifesto that they encourage the building of critical
infrastructure in the Palestinian East Jerusalem, a clear indicator that they believe that Jerusalem
should be divided equally in any future deal. The refuges issue they also have a neutral stance
on, stating that whatever is agreed between the two parties they will respect and that they still
encourage and will provide support for Palestinian refugees. And lastly on the issue of security,
the European Union defends Israels rights to protect its own citizens from danger and attacks,
but also stress that they should do so within the scope of international law.
When I looked up what the European Union Councils conclusions on the peace process were
from 2013, I found that their doctrine outline was a bit more mild and equal than the one issued
by the High Representative Catherine Ashton. With their statement, they praised the United
States and especially Secretary of State John Kerry for their tireless efforts and engagement.
Like most everyone, they reiterate their support for a two state solution. They also mention the
continuation of dialogue with the other Nations of the Middle East in addition to Israel and
Palestine, as well as committing their organization to supplying both political and economic aid
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 13
to both sides of the conflict, with a later promise of equal access and arrangements within the
European Union markets. They make mention of the fact that a One State solution would not be
a viable option as it goes against self-determination and is unenforceable. And lastly, they say
something, which I found intriguing, they reiterate keeping the status quo and avoiding anything
that would undermine a peace agreement. Things like further building of settlements, border
disputes and violence in Gaza.
All in all, what one can make out from their official policy positions which I located on their
European Union website, are that they are more heavily sided with the Palestinian plight in this
conflict than the Israeli. They only defend Israel on one key issue, that of security, but even there
they show restraint in implying that their current course of action may violate international law.
Third Perspective: The United Nations
This is a rather complicated one at best. The reason for this notion is that the United Nations
exists as an organizational body where every Nation is allotted one vote on the floor and any one
specific Nation does not run it. The closest thing they have to any form of authority come in two
entities. One is the person who holds the highest rank with the United Nations, who currently is
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of Burma. And the second is the U.N. Security Council, which
is comprised of the five permanent members the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China, the
victorious powers of World War II. All it takes to pass a resolution in the United Nations is a
majority vote on the floor.
In essence, there are two ways to look at a position the United Nations is taking. There is the
position, which their leadership, the Secretary General supports which is heavily influenced by
the Security Council and the other major G20 powers, or the position of the entire body of
Nations as a voting system which passes resolutions which are nothing more than symbolic in
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 14
most cases. One thing is very clear though, which makes the United Nations a very interesting
perspective in this situation. They have a terrible reputation for being harshly biased against
Israel, and their voting record proves it. An example of this is that since the United Nations
Human Rights Council was formed in 2006, Israel has been condemned in a total of 45
resolutions! To put this in perspective, that was more than every other nation in the World
combined.
To say that the United Nations heavily sides with the Palestinians is quite an understatement.
For example in 1975, they passed a resolution equating Zionism with Racism. Since then there
has existed a huge distrust between Israel and the U/N. But what must be put into context is that
within the voting body of the United Nations, like any other government body, there are factions
and cliques who will vote together in solidarity to make a statement to the rest, in this case the
World. So whenever a resolution is passed by the U.N. it does not mean that the organization is
condemning Israel, it means that a majority of Nations regardless of stature or level of power are.
As I mentioned earlier in my paper, I frequently travel to Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
And I can say that if there is one organization that is loved more by the Palestinians and loathed
by the Israelis, it is the United Nations.
The United Nations is more biased; the role they play and contribute to the peace process is
not through diplomacy or acting as middlemen. Their role is in providing aid and support to the
people in the conflict in both Israel and especially the Palestinian Territories. They provide U.N.
peacekeeping forces to patrol and safeguard the northern borders of Israel as well as with the
Gaza strip and the West Bank. They run refugee camps for Palestinians who have been displaced
through (UNRWA). More recently though, the United Nations played a role in a new chapter of
the conflict when in 2012, they voted 138 in favor, 9 against with 41 abstentions to grant
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 15
Palestine Non-Member Observer Status. Which officially made Palestine a State in everything
but having a vote on the U.N. floor. This act was seen as a tremendous blow to Israel and it
caused much tension between them and the U.N.
Coming full circle: What is the future, and where do they stand?
After completing my research and examining the factors each of my three perspectives
contributes to the outcome of the conflict, what I have noticed is three entirely different
viewpoints, but with smaller similarities. Ultimately, the United States will always, and
continues to be Israels greatest ally, and they will always be our best one in the Middle East.
Our foreign policy heavily favors their interests and security in the region, yet also of late is
starting to accommodate the Palestinian side a bit more with time under the current
administration. The end game for America is seeing the implementation of a two-state solution
peace deal whereby Israel maintains its current territorial integrity while making some small
concessions to the Palestinians on certain issues such as Jerusalem and the refugee status.
For the European Union, like the United States, they also wish to see a two-state solution
implemented in any future peace deal. However, they would also like to see the Palestinians gain
some territory which they feel is being encroached on by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. And
just as much they would also like to gain a more important role in the peace talks if they can help
it, but nonetheless they have committed to providing financial aid and other assistance to both
peoples. Overall, they are fairly balanced between the two sides knowing that in Israel there is
economic, military and political stability they can count on as an ally in a region that is not so
pro-western. That said though, they do tend to show sympathy to the Palestinian plight on some
issues and fall short of pointing the finger at or condemning Israel for actions they see as
brushing with International laws.
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 16
Dealing with the third wheel of my research, the United Nations sits between the United
States and the European Union as an organization whose main function is to promote peace and
cooperation between countries and governments instead of resorting to violence and war. In the
past they have sponsored several peace talks and negotiations, but they have never taken
complete control of them and none of them have gotten anywhere substantial. Their primary
function in this conflict is to serve as the support and aid services to the mainly Palestinian but
also Israeli peoples. With the U.N. General Assembly on the surface, this organization portrays
itself as being extremely against Israel and pro Palestinian both through its actions and its
rhetoric. However behind the Security council doors and in the office of the Secretary General,
there is the realization that Israel is a stable democracy in the Middle East which guarantees civil
rights most other countries in the region do not have nor dream of having. And so when
watching or reading remarks or speeches given by Ban Ki-moon, he is usually gives high praise
to Israel and encourages further talks to be held.
The irony with the United Nations is that it was this very body, which established the State of
Israel in 1947 and hence created the conflict inherently. And now, their action has come full
circle sixty-seven years later, with the World devoting much of its attention to this very conflict!







ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 17
References

Ashton, C. (2010, March 10). Speech by HR Catherine Ashton, at the League of
Arab States A Commitment to Peace the European Union and the Middle East. .
Retrieved June 8, 2014, from
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/11335
2.pdf

Buss, M. For the U.S., Israel, and Palestine: what's plan B?. The American
Prospect, 25, 50-54.

Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process. (2014, May 12). .
Retrieved June 8, 2014, from
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/14255
5.pdf

EU Positions on the Middle East Peace Process. (2014, January 1). . Retrieved
June 8, 2014, from http://www.eeas.europa.eu/mepp/eu-
positions/eu_positions_en.htm

Jaspal, R., & Coyle, A. Threat, Victimhood, and Peace: Debating the 2011
Palestinian UN State Membership Bid. D.O.M.E.S "Digest of Middle East
Studies". , 23, 190-214.

Menenberg, A. The Oslo Legacy . World Affairs, 174, 23-30.

Miller, R. Europe's Palestine Problem. Foreign Affairs, 90, 8-12.

Peters, J. Europe and the Israel-Palestinian peace process: the urgency of now..
European Security, 19, 511-529.