During the time period preceding and including the Second World War (1930-1945), another major influx of European immigrants arrived in Palestine in order to flee the rise of Nazism. As a result, the British Government continually tried to halt these migrations in order to calm the already tense region between the Arabs and Jews. After the War, however, the regional affairs were handed over the United Nations (UN) in order to regain a sense of calm and organisation. A further setback to the calming of relations was the result of the systematic genocide by the Nazis of European Jewry, resulting in 6 million lives being lost (BBC 2005). The remaining refugees found refuge in Palestine, or the ‘Holy Land.’ The Arabs of the region were continually bombarding the region in order to rid it of its Jewish residents. In 1947, the UN founded a Partition Plan, resulting in Resolution 181, in order to create two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews overwhelmingly accepted this proposal, as they felt it would become a place of refuge for every Jewish citizen of the world. The Arabs, on the other hand, were adamantly against this proposal, in that they did not accept any kind of presence of a Jewish state, disregarding the fact they would result in a Palestinian state of their own (Oren 2003: 4).
As a result of this difference of opinions, violence erupted throughout Palestine between Arab and Jewish militias; the Jews being more successful. On May 15, 1948, the State of Israel was declared as an independent and sovereign state, resulting into even further violence, with the invasion of her neighbouring countries of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. By the time the dust settled, 75% of the British Mandate of Palestine was conquered and settled by Israel, while Egypt held control over the Gaza Strip and Jordon formally annexed the West Bank (BBC 2005). The Israeli Independence War also resulted in 650,000 to 750,000 Arab refugees fleeing towards Jordan and Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip, which was administered by Egypt. (Oren 2003: 4).
This al-Nakbah, or “the Disaster,” as the Arabs like to call it, became the epitome of the Arab nations’ needs of fighting and destroying the Jewish presence in the Middle East (Oren 2003: 6). Through this event, the rise of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism resulted in continual rhetoric against the Jewish state, and the eventual evolution of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, or PLO.
As mentioned earlier, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was initially established to help Israel’s war-like neighbours attack her without the needs of conventional warfare, as they were well aware of Israel’s military superiority. By doing so, the governments of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq intended on forming a resistance movement intended for the sole purpose of annihilating Israel and her citizens (Rubin 1994: 8). As a statement of sincerity, the PLO introduced their ‘Palestinian National Charter.’ Within their Charter, the organisation strictly stresses the need for the expulsion of the Jewish state, to be replaced with an Arab independent state of ‘Palestine’ (PLO Covenant 1968). During this time, Arafat and his comrades setup offices Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere, and tried to legitimise their existence as a political organisation in exile.
Initially, the Palestinians resorted to the use of guerrilla warfare in order to try and provoke a large-scale war between Israel and her neighbours, intending to result in an Israeli defeat and the restoration of Palestine (Rubin 1994: 9). According to Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader (Rubin 1994: 9), the Palestinians would be the focus point of world politics as a result of their ongoing attacks against Israeli civilians. This, in return, would help them gain support for their cause of self-determination, and the end to the Israeli ‘occupation.’
Throughout the late 1960s and 1985, the PLO demonstrated numerous acts of terrorism against Israel and Israeli targets worldwide (Rubin 1994: 24). Such acts included the hijacking of airliners in return for prisoners, the killing of nine children and three teachers in a rocket attack on an Israeli school bus, as well as the notorious massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. These acts of violence against innocent bystanders was justified by Arafat in that “civilians or military, they’re all equally guilty of wanting to destroy our [the Palestinian] people” (Fallaci 1977: 131). In addition to Arafat’s remarks, the PLO, officially, reasoned that these attacks were legitimate attacks in order to continue their armed struggle against an “illegitimate regime [Israel] undermining their rights to self-determination” (Rubin 1994: 25-27).
Although the Israeli government and military acted accordingly to thwart and cease these aforementioned acts of violence, the conflict continued. In 1982, as a means of dismantling the organisation, the Israeli military invaded Lebanon and attacked Palestinian targets accused of committing acts of violence against Israel. This ongoing operation was called “Operation Peace in Galilee,” referring to the northern Galilee region of Israel bordering Lebanon. As a result of this operation, the PLO was instructed to leave Lebanese territory and found refuge in Tunisia, ultimately constructing its headquarters there (Wikipedia 2005).
In 1987, the Palestinians in Israel, specifically in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, promoted an uprising, or Intifada. This action was the cause of continual strife within the territories and ill-feeling towards the Palestinians’ occupiers (Israel). The streets were crowded with youths throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers in front of the media cameras. They also resulted in the numerous stabbings of Israeli soldiers and civilians.
In 1991 and 1993, however, it seemed as though the tide was changing with the introduction of the Madrid and Oslo peace conferences, respectively. In 1993, then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Peace Accords. These accords were to be the introduction of a ‘new era’ in Middle East conflict. This so-called ‘new era’ was to introduce the initiative and steps in promoting peace within the region.
Throughout the late 1990s, however, the PLO continued to perpetrate acts of violence against Israelis civilians, namely continuous suicide bombings within pre-1967 Israel. The bombers themselves were considered as martyrs for the cause of the Palestinian people for self-determination. These acts further stalled the peace talks and in the year 2000, US President Bill Clinton initiated a peace dialogue between the two sides in order to curb the ongoing violence. Peace initiative was named the “Camp David Summit”, so-called because of the location at the President’s Camp David vacation resort. The key actors at this summit were PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and US President Bill Clinton.
According to former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, during Camp David summit, the Palestinians did not promote any source of compromise, nor did they want to, especially over the issue of refugees and the established borders. Rather, they wanted the Israelis to concede as much as possible and not be prepared to compromise on any other level (Shavit 2003). In addition, it seemed as though the Palestinians were not taking the initiative so seriously as they did not want to agree on any sort of Israeli initiative, but were rather continuing with they ideological rhetoric of obtaining as much Israeli land as possible, including having Jerusalem (Israel’s capital city) as their own capital (Shavit 2003). The talks broke down as a result of this stubbornness, and a second Intifada erupted soon thereafter.
The two parties returned to the negotiating table in 2003 in order to maintain a sense of calm within the region. The final doctrine that was agreed upon was the “Roadmap to Peace,” introduced by the UN, US, EU, and Russia. The Israelis and Palestinians were both to introduce confidence-building measures as means to resolve the continual sense of impasses (CNN 2005). Such measures included the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, and the exchange of security roles between the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the Palestinian Security forces. This initiative did not come to be, however, due to the lack of determination played upon both parties, particularly the Palestinians. There were continual acts of violence against the Israeli public, including suicide bombings in cafes, restaurants, and public transport vehicles.
The Palestine Liberation Organisation’s justification for its acts of violence against Israel is her continual ‘legitimate’ fight for self-determination. Self-determination, as Heywood (2003) suggests, is the national interest of a people to have political independence, whereby obtaining their own legitimate government (Heywood 2003: 165). The term to stress with the above definition is “national interest.” In the original structuring of the PLO, the majority of Palestinians were not consulted with the administration of the organisation, nor did they feel it necessary to promote acts of violence against Israel (JBD 1982: 2). During the years, however, the acts increased, leading to continual bloodshed in the region at the expense of Israeli lives. It should also be noted that due to the lack of determination by Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians, it seems as though the PLO is not interested in a peaceful settlement, but rather it stands by her Charter in that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine… It is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase…the Palestinian people assert their absolute determination to continue their armed struggle” (PLO Covenant 1968: Article 9).
From the above, it is seen, that although this is a conflict that spreads throughout the ages and there have been attempts to resolve it, there may not be any final solution for it. This is in part a result of mutual stubbornness between both parties, the Israeli and Palestinian, but also in part due to the PLO’s continual ideological determination to rid the Middle East region of “Zionism” (PLO Covenant 1968: Article 8). One must also recognise the continual efforts and sacrifices placed by Israel in order to maintain peace and resolve the conflict. Conclusively, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was originally designated to fight against the sovereign State of Israel, and will continue to do so, so long as she is in existence (PLO Covenant 1968).
References
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2005) A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians [online] , April 22].
Cable News Network (CNN) (2005) Mideast: Land of Conflict, [online] [2005, April 28].
Fallaci, O. (1977) Interview with History, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Friedman, M. (2005) The Zionist Century – Concepts - Aliyah 1920-1946, [online] , April 26].
Heywood, A. (2003) Political Ideologies: an Introduction 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD). (1982) The PLO Exposed, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Darlinghurst.
Oren, M B. (2003) Six Days of War, Random House Publishing, United States of America.
Palestine National Council. (1968) PLO Covenant (Charter) [online] , April 19].
Rubin, B. (1994) Revolution Until Victory? The Politics and History of the PLO, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.
Shavit, A. (2003) What Really Happened at Camp David? [Online] , April 23].
