ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT:

Towards Conflict Resolution

________________________________________

A Research Paper Submitted to the

Social Sciences Division

University of the Philippines in the Visayas

Cebu College

Lahug, Cebu City

___________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Political Geography 171

Researchers:

Ferrer, Euvic M.

Pescadero, Cris Virgil M.

Tumulak, Karla Marie T.

___________________________________________

Adviser:

Ms. Mae Claire Jabines

October 06, 2008

1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the essential background of the study, the problem and as well as

the scope of the problem and the limitations of the study being set upon by the researchers. This

chapter provides the essential preliminaries for this research paper and will serve as the

foundation of the study.

Rationale

For the contemporary student of political science, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is just

one of the geopolitical issues that are still unresolved. The conflict is tainted with religious

assertions, territorial disputes, and matched with conspicuous influence of external world powers

that made the matters worse. For such a long time now, the world has not seen any significant

change and developments with the conflict. Great empires have been built and destroyed, great

wars have been fought, agreements and resolutions have been drafted and approved, and a most

striking feature of such geopolitical issue is the fact that the boundaries, together with the wars

and agreements that were made, have been re-drawn. The Israeli-Palestinian border has been

changed dramatically from the area including Jordan during the British occupation to the recent

geography of the state of Israel. The political change within the territory has led to the constant

change in border.

The study of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a geopolitical issue that is worth taking

into consideration. Its span encompasses issues of nationalism and self-determination and the

imperial desires of external actors who have been huge contributors to the conflict. It is of

essence for a political science student to study such issues to widen his/her scope in geopolitics.

The researchers chose the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as a topic for this research paper

because of its complexity. It is a conflict that rooted from a number of issues. Religious

contentions are conspicuous in every aspect of the conflict. The issue can even be attached to the

great empires of the Ottoman and the Roman. The interplay of different political participants is

also a matter to be considered in uncovering the mysteries of this issue.

2

Given the wide array of difference of the people involved in the conflict and considering

the level of atrocities and violence being employed to advance nationalistic gains, not to mention

the different initiatives of ‘third-parties’, the conceptualization of a solution was foreseen as a

big challenge for the researchers as well.

Statement of the Problem

The concern of the research paper is to provide a background of the Israeli-Palestinian

Conflict and eventually come up with sound solution/s to the said conflict.

Specifically, this paper aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

1.1 Who are the state-actors and how are they involved?

1.2 What are the internal and external causes of the Israeli-Palestinian

Conflict?

2. Based on employed Geopolitical Concepts and Theories, what are the possible

solutions to this conflict?

Objectives of the Study

1. To present a background on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2. To present possible solutions to the conflict based on applied Geopolitical Concepts

and Theories

Significance of the Study

The following will benefit from the study:

Israelis and Palestinians. Thorough treatment of the conflict between these two parties will

be significant. Furthermore, being the main actors of the conflict

the study will be able to suggest solutions to the existing conflict.

Political and Social

Institutions and International

3

Organizations. The study will be significant for it will provide foundations for

appropriate and proper actions that are to be done in solving the

conflict.

Students. The study is significant since it provides background on the said

conflict. More so, it provides in-depth treatment about the issue.

Researchers. The researchers will benefit from this study since they will be to

understand and know the causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict and

be able to render solutions that will help solve the conflict.

Scope and Limitations

The study was conducted to look into the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The study will discuss the background of the Israel-Palestine conflict and will dwell on various

geopolitical theories and concepts that can be applied in understanding the conflict. The

geopolitical theories and concepts will serve as tools for understanding the conflict and also as

bases for possible solutions to the Israel-Palestine contention.

The aspects being looked into the research are internal and external causes of the conflict,

the state actors involved in the conflict, and the possible solutions for the conflict based on

geopolitical theories and concepts. Further, the study will only cover the background of the

conflict starting from the situation of Palestine under Ottoman rule until the recent events in the

Israel-Palestine conflict since tracing the ancient history of Palestine and its original settlers is

largely grounded on arbitrary evidences i.e. biblical records which can be traced back to the

ancient times of Abraham. Besides tracing the ancient history of Palestine would only complicate

the research and the important events that lead to the conflict are found in the recent history of

the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Definition of Terms

Zionism - movement aimed at “living in the land of the Jews and return to

Zion (www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm).

4

-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine ruled by the

Jews.

Self-determination - the concept wherein people of the same cultural contents move

for their independence and for them to own a territory where they

can enjoy civil and political rights without external control.

Organic State Theory - theory explaining the expansion of lands of states as organic

likened to that of an organism.

- the state needs to “eat up” lands to survive.

Power Urge - came from the urge of self-assertion, which is the urge of the

state due to quest for prestige, gratification, desire to profit from

other people’s work and even personal ambition.

- the need to stress the rights of the states to exist and their urge to

self-assertion

Theory of Integration - political integration as a condition that is attained by a group of

people—sense of community and strong practices and institutions

that will ensure the peaceful change among its population.

Nationalism - ideology of the nation-state

- it asserts the right of a nation of people to be served by a state

that complements their interests

Theoretical Framework

The following geopolitical theories and concepts will serve as guide for the study

especially in understanding the essential issues involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Furthermore, these geopolitical theories and concepts will serve as bases in the formulation of

possible solutions for the Israel-Palestine conflict.

5

The Jews, for a long time have suffered persecution for centuries spread throughout the

world in Diasporas. They were dispersed in different places throughout the world yet they were

able to retain their religion and cultural identity. With the occupation of Jews in Palestine fuelled

by the desire for the consolidation and establishment of a Jewish state, a great number of original

Palestinian settlers were eventually displaced from their homeland.

Friedrich Ratzel’s Organic State Theory is essential in understanding Israel’s

territorial expansion to its neighboring borders and conquering majority of the Palestinian lands.

Ratzel’s organic state theory explains that states were seen as living organisms that occupies

territorial space. Furthermore, states would strive to extend their territorial frontiers since the

vastness of a state’s land area is tantamount to its power position.

The concepts of Nationalism and the right to Self-determination can be applied in

understanding the growing conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians. The core of the Israel-

Palestine contention is rooted on the nationalist movement of both people claiming the same

land. Nationalism asserts the right of a nation of people to be served by a state that complements

their interests. Nationalism played a major role in the events leading to the Israel-Palestine

conflict since both parties ground on the dream of recovering their sacred homeland.

International law recognizes the state’s right to self-determination to ensure its survival. The

principle of the right to self-determination can be applied in the continuing Israel-Palestine

conflict since both parties claim the establishment of a sovereign state i.e. Palestine state and a

Jewish state on grounds of recovery of ancestral domain.

The “power urge” exercised by states has been the source of conflicts affecting the

international community. Robert Strausz-Hupe’s concept of “power urge” explains Israel’s

territorial expansion and its defensive stance on its acquired territories from Palestine. The

unresolved conflict between the two nations started from the urge of self-assertion of both parties

each claiming the land for themselves.

Karl Deutsch’s Theory of Integration and Disintegration defines political integration

as “a condition in which a group of people have attained within a territory a sense of community

and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure, for a long time,

dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population”. Deutsch’s theory of

integration and disintegration can be applied in understanding the differences between the Jews

and the Arab population in Palestine. Furthermore, Deutsch added that integration is a means

6

wherein people seek peaceful settlements of their disputes instead of resorting to war. Deutsch’s

theory provided conditions in formulating amalgamated and pluralistic securities communities.

As for this study, his conditions for a pluralistic security community are favourable for the

solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Conceptual Framework

The researchers used five Theories and Concepts of Geopolitics in treating the subject

matter. Three of these theories were used to analyze the conflict and two of which were used to

determine possible solution/s for the conflict. Basically, the methodology of study is patterned

from the conceptual framework.

Figure 1 shows the Conceptual Framework of the study. The researchers will follow this

framework in dealing with the study. Constant reading and matter loading, and theory

application is indispensable in this study.

Understanding the conflict is the very first task of the researchers.

To matter load on the issue, the researchers looked for books and articles on the internet

(see Bibliography). A lot of sources presented different angles of the issue. Different angles were

necessary to come up with a balanced study of the conflict. Discourse within the group was

necessary to maintain understanding among the researchers.

To understand more the issue researchers employed different theories of Geopolitics. The

conflict was treated with three different concepts and theories. As discussed in the Theoretical

Framework of the study, these concepts helped the researchers in dissecting the topic and

provided the researchers with a better way of looking at the issue.

A comprehensive analysis of the conflict is necessary to come up with possible solutions

for the problem. Two other theories and concepts of Geopolitics guided the researchers to come

up with appropriate solutions.

After matter loading and application of the theories, the researchers have achieved their

objectives

7

Conceptual Framework

8

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Friedrich Ratzel’s “Organic State Theory”

Robert Strausz-Hupe’s “Power Urge” Theory

Analysis of the Conflict

Karl Wolfgang Deustch’s Theory of Integration and

Disintegration

Right to Self-Determination

Solution/s

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT AND POSSIBLE SOLUTION/S

Nationalism

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the StudyChapter II

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter presents the background of the conflict, the application of the theories and

the analysis of the data. In addition, this chapter discusses the solutions of the conflict based on

the data gathered and the theories being employed.

Background

Under the Ottoman Empire at about 1880, there were 24,000 Jews living in Palestine out

of the 400,000 population. By 1914, the total population of Palestine reached 700,000;

approximately 88% of which were Arabs and the remaining 12% were Jews. There was no Israel

state then. Jews and Arabs coexisted in Palestine under Ottoman rule.

The later part of the World War I

signalled a victory for the Allied Powers

against the Central Powers and its allies.

Moved by their imperialist ambitions in the

Middle East, France and Britain planned to

divide the Middle East territories between

them through the Sykes-Picot Agreement of

1916. The agreement gave a portion of

Palestine to the British, another part under a

joint Allied government, and Syria and

Lebanon went to the French.

By then, there was an ongoing

movement called Zionism aimed at “living in

the land of the Jews and return to Zion”

(www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm). The

Zionists' advocacy could never be realized

because they lack support from European

9

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sykesmap.html

and Ottoman governments. However, the First World War provided an opportunity. Chaim

Weizmann, a British Zionist chemist, had developed an explosive that was indispensable for

Britain's war against Germany. Weizmann and his colleagues convinced the British government

to provide a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. Fortunately, the British leaders were

sympathetic. Then Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild supporting

the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Since then, this document has been referred

to as the Balfour Declaration. A part of the declaration is as follows:

“His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment of

Palestine as the National Home for the Jewish people and will use the

best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this project, it being

clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the

civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

(Spencer, 2000, pp. 28)

The Balfour Declaration was seen by the Jews as a step towards building the Jewish state

in Palestine. On the other side, the declaration received opposition from the Arab nationalists

who refused the establishment of a Jewish national home fearing for the displacement of the

native Arab population.

The World War I ended and the Ottoman Empire was divided into mandated territories by

the League of Nations. Britain petitioned for the transfer of mandate of Palestine to them to make

sure the implementation of the Balfour declaration and to keep France away from the area. The

British received the provisional mandate over Palestine in 1920. The original British mandate

included the area of Palestine and Trans-Jordan (present Jordan). The mandate tasked the British

to help the Jews in creating their homeland in Palestine and come up with self-governing

institutions necessary for a Jewish state. To realize this mandate, the Jewish Agency for Palestine

was instituted to “represent Jewish interests in Palestine to the British and to promote Jewish

immigration”. (http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm)

10

The agency was considered to be the de-facto government of the Jewish community in

Palestine. In 1922, Trans-Jordan was given independence by British and the rest of the area from

the west of Jordan River to the east of the Mediterranean Sea as Palestine.

Conflict broke out between the Jewish community and the Arab community who opposed

the Balfour declaration, the British mandate and the large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The British tried to resolve the conflict between the two parties through issuing the Passfield

White Paper which attempted to stop the Jewish immigration to Palestine and recommended a

self-governing Arab state.

Despite the British attempts to reconcile both parties, Jewish and Arab antagonism

continued, aggravated by the unimpeded Jewish immigration especially during the Holocaust.

“The Zionist movement resorted to violence defined as terrorism,

resistance, or national liberation, depending upon the political vantage

point.”

(Flint,2006, pp. 140)

The bombing of the King David Hotel, the center or British rule in Palestine, perpetrated

by the violent Zionist movement forced the British to let the United Nations handle the situation.

The United Nations formed the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine

(UNSCOP) which recommended for the division of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state.

11

British Mandate over Palestine (1920)Source:http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-2.html

British Mandate over Palestine (1922)Source:http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-2.html

“The UN drew up a partition plan in November 1947. Under the

plan, a Jewish state would control 56 percent of the existing Palestine

mandate, and an Arab state would control 43 percent. The city of

Jerusalem would be a UN-administered, internationalized zone.”

(Flint, 2006, pp.140)

The Zionists accepted the partition plan despite

disappointment of not having the entire Palestine.

The Arabs, on the other hand, rejected the partition

plan because of the unfair partition of the territory

i.e. greater part of Palestine was given to the Jews.

By 1948, war broke out as Arab states invaded

Israel as an actualization of their rejection of the UN

partition plan. Israel turned out as the victor of the

war because all of the lands allotted for the Jewish

state by the UN partition plan and plus half of the

areas allotted for the Arab state ended up with Israel.

The West Bank of the Jordan River was held under

Jordanian forces while the Gaza Strip was captured

by the

Egyptians. By

the end of the

war of 1948,

the de-facto boundaries of Israel was established and

eventually led to Israel’s declaration of its independence

on May 14, 1948 which was recognized by the United

States and the Soviet Union. However, the proclamation

of East Jerusalem (then under Jordanian control) as a

capital was not recognized internationally.

12

UN Partition Plan of 1947Source: http://charlie180.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/un_partition_plan_palestine.png

Israel 1948-1949Source: http://www.warchat.org/history-middle-east/arab-

The UN Partition Plan was not the last movement that changed the boundaries of Israel.

Two more wars followed.

After capturing the Gaza Strip, Egyptian forces moved up its military defenses towards

Israel and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba. This movement led to the Six Day War of 1967 which

then proved the then-elusive nature of the Israeli army as it became victor again and managed to

snatch the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan

Heights. This demarcation led to uprisings from the neighboring Arab states and to another war

that would change the territory of the Jewish state, the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

Neighboring Syria and Egypt launched attacks against the Israeli state during a Jewish

religious holiday. Syrian forces were then defeated by the Israeli army and the Egyptian forces

were eventually held captive by the Jews.

This war ushered peace talks between Israel and Egypt. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt

veered away from the violence and took the chances in fostering peace with Israel. At the same

time, UN tasked Israel to slowly move out of the Sinai Peninsula. The result of such peace

negotiations was the “Camp David” peace agreement of 1978 that paved the way for US aid to

rush into Egypt and Israel.

13

Source: http://www.planetware.com/map/israel-6-day-war-1967-and-yom-kippur-war-map-isr-isr12.htm

At about that time, the UN issued two separate resolutions, numbers 242 and 338, signed

and passed after the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War respectively. The two resolutions

revolved around the idea of Israel giving up their newly-subjugated territories (West Bank and

Gaza Strip) and for the other states to recognize Israel as a sovereign state ergo, an end to the

conflict between the states. However, the

fate of the Palestinian refugees was not

explicitly provided provisions in the said

resolutions.

The UN Partition Plan of 1947

stated that the West Bank and Gaza Strip

was intended for an Arabic state. With the

resolutions numbers 242 and 338, and the

UN Partition Plan, the claim of

Palestinians for the West Bank and the

Gaza Strip only became stronger.

Recognition was an unheard cry for

the Israeli state. Violence was a mainstay

in areas of Israel and Palestine. Different

organizations in Palestine and the

sophisticated Israeli military fought for

each other’s nationalistic desires. Despite

of these bloody confrontations, peace

agreements and solutions were also being

considered by both parties.

First of these peaceful solutions is for Israel to honor the resolution number 242 and 338

stipulating that Israel should withdraw their forces and give up West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Giving this up would mean that the Palestinians would take over the West Bank. A Palestinian

authority of the West Bank would mean recognition of the Israelis state and this could

successfully foster peace with neighboring Arab countries for Israel. However, the control of the

West Bank, according to the Oslo II Agreements of 1995, only three percent (3%) of the West

Bank will be under total Palestinian Control while 70% would be under Israeli rule and the

14

Oslo II agreement of 1995Source: http://mondediplo.com/maps/westbankoslo2

The Green LineSource: http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/

remaining 27% is under a mixed control. Technically speaking, the Palestinians are at a

disadvantage.

The Gaza Strip is currently governed by the agreements provided in the Oslo peace

process. Israel’s authority over the Gaza Strip is mostly transferred to the Palestinian National

Authority. Despite efforts of peace negotiations, widespread violence continues in the Gaza Strip

intensified by terrorist attacks and Al-Aqsa Intifada by the Palestinian Arabs. Little progress has

been made towards mutual and perpetual agreement on the status of the Gaza Strip. Israel

continues to guard the external borders for the security of the Jewish settlements in the Gaza

Strip.

The ‘Road Map’ for peace was initiated by

the United States under the Bush administration in

2003 which initiated for the disarmament of

Palestinian Arab terrorists groups e.g. Hamas, Islamic

Jihad groups and called for the security of Israel

against terrorist attacks.

The construction of the Israel security fence

along the borders of the Green Line has aroused

criticisms from the Arabs. The security fence was

erected to prevent illegal immigration of the Arabs

into protected Jewish settlements and to prevent

terrorist attacks. The Palestinian Arabs opposed the

construction of the fence saying that it violates human

rights. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution

stating that the Israel security fence violates

international law. The case was brought up to the International Court of Justice and reprimanded

Israel for the erection of the security fence. Israel did not abide its international obligation and

instead modified the path to which the fence is to be erected.

By February 2004, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced the disengagement

plan which supported for the complete Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian claimed territories

in Gaza Strip and West Bank. The disengagement plan was viewed as a unilateral action of

15

Israel which received disapproval from some advocates of Zionism fearing that it would indicate

Israel’s surrender to the demands of terrorist groups. Further, the repeated failures of diplomacy

and negotiations due to suicide bombings and massive terrorist attacks against Israel, urged the

Israeli government to take action and finally put an end to the conflict. However, the plan was

still a failure as it was not able to prevent the escalation of suicide bombings and Arab

antagonism against Israel.

The death of long-time PLO leader Yasser Arafat with the succession of Mahmoud

Abbas as president of the Palestinian National Authority in 2005 left the situation in uncertain

future. Also, tension began to rise between the two Palestinian political parties, the Hamas and

the Fatah which was intensified by the victory of Hamas as a majority in the Palestinian

Legislative Council in 2006. Matters turned worst as UN censured the Hamas-lead government

in the Gaza Strip for its non-recognition of Israel as a state.

The on-going dispute between Israel and Palestinian Arabs continue to persist in the

Middle East as conflict had included the neighboring Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon and

Jordan. Israel and Palestinian Authority have remained vigilant and armed against antagonisms

coming from both sides as the peace between two people both claiming the same land is yet to

be discerned.

Friedrich Ratzel’s Organic State Theory

It has been quite obvious that the map of the Israeli state has changed dramatically over

time. Geographically speaking, the declared Israeli state during the 1940’s can be found right in

the middle of Arab countries who have been very aggressive in taking back what was once the

possession of their Arabic Palestinian brothers and sisters. Israel, geographically, is at a

disadvantageous position; making Israel insecure.

In every war, since their war for Independence, Israel has emerged as winner. Israel’s

army have proven for years that they are equipped and at the same time, convinced that they

should fight for their ‘lands’. Israel has managed to train an army that is ready to fight the

enemies amidst geographic disadvantages.

Ratzel’s organic state ate up all the surrounding territories because the state needs to

grow. It is to be remembered that a remarkable goal for both Jews and Arabs is to have their

own, recognized territory for their growing population.

16

The Jewish state of Israel needs to eat up the lands. The larger Israel becomes, the more

optimal the environment will become for the Jews.

Nationalism

The Israel-Palestine conflict is viewed as the struggle for territory and establishment of a

Jewish or Arab state in Palestine. The conflict is rooted on the disparity of two peoples claiming

the same land. Both sides struggle for achieving the same end: the establishment of a Jewish

state (for the Jews) and an Arab state (for the Palestinian Arabs). Both sides are geared for the

actualization of opposite and absolute ends. Nationalism is used as lens in understanding the

Israel-Palestine conflict.

Nationalism is the core of the Zionist ideology. Originally, Zionism was an organized

movement which aimed for the Jewish return to their biblical homeland (Palestine). Eventually,

Zionism has evolved into a major political movement working for a main purpose: the

unification of the Jewish Diaspora which has suffered persecution for centuries, weaving

together of the traditional Jewish faith and culture, and the establishment of a Jewish state in

Palestine. However, ideology alone won’t make this dream possible. The Jews are struggling for

national liberation and have suffered centuries of persecution i.e. Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi

Germany. The establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is near to its realization if backed with

arms struggle and strong Jewish nationalism. The strong Jewish nationalism can be traced back

to the centuries of Jewish exile from their promised land. The Jews, despite being detached,

distributed in Diasporas and severed by Jewish persecutions, were able to retain their traditional

Jewish faith and culture. That sense of nationalism is a tool for survival for the Jewish

community. The following is an excerpt from Nobel Peace Prize-winner Elie Wiesel:

“Jewish history, flooded by suffering but anchored in defiance,

describes a permanent conflict between us (Jews) and the others. Ever since

Abraham (the father of Judaism), we have been on one side and the rest of the

world on the other.”

(Spencer, 2000, pp.75)

17

The strong urge of Jewish nationalism has led to the formation of Jewish extremists

groups like the Kach, Irgun and the Haganah which are militant Zionist organizations that use

arms struggle for the realization of the Jewish state. These militant Zionist organizations have

perpetrated anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian violence and have taken into the extremes the Jews’ right

to self-determination i.e. the Irgun was the perpetrator of the bombing of the King David Hotel in

Palestine.

Nationalism is also the cohesive factor of the Palestinians’ clamour for the retrieval of

their ancestral homeland and their struggle for the creation and recognition of a sovereign

Palestinian state. Palestinian extremism has resulted from the Palestinians’ frustrations of the

peace process between Israel worsened by the anti-Palestinian violence. The main extremist

Palestinian group is the Hamas which has declared its non-recognition of the state of Israel. The

goal of this extremist group is the retrieval of the sacred homeland of the Palestinian Arabs from

Jewish invasion. The Hamas and the Fatah (another Palestinian organization) decided to reach an

agreement of formal unity in the Palestinian National Authority however preceded by the death

of Yasser Arafat, tensions grew between the two militant belligerents. The growing tension was

intensified after Hamas won majority seat in the Palestinian Legislative Council. The UN

together with the US government considers the Hamas like the Hezbollah as terrorist group

therefore cutting off their aid to the Palestinian government. Foreign aid would resume only if

the Hamas-lead government would recognize Israel’s existence as a state, stop the violence and

adhere to the Road Map to peace process. These stipulations are up to now inconceivable for

Hamas to abide to.

Further, the Palestinian Arabs have showed their resistance against Israeli rule through

the Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The stone-throwing of the Palestinians shocked the

Israeli soldiers as well as the Israeli public. It was a massive uprising against the Israeli control

of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The rebellion ranged from civil disobedience

to violence e.g. strikes and boycotts. Violence continues to swell in these disputed areas.

Robert Strausz-Hupe “Power Urge” Theory

Robert Strausz-Hupe presented the concept of power urge as source of conflicts among

states, further creating confusion and turmoil in international scene. The notion of power urge, as

Strausz-Hupe conceptualized, came from the urge of self-assertion, which is the urge of the state

18

due to quest for prestige, gratification, desire to profit from other people’s work and even

personal ambition. As presented, there is the need to stress the rights of the states to exist and

their urge to self-assertion. Power urge are being revealed in several conflicts; territorial claims,

psychological differences, conflicting security interests, and even population pressure. Results of

power urge are also being equalled to the objectives of the state; this includes (1) redrawing of its

own borders, (2) modification of another state’s political, social and cultural system, (3) increase

in its security by removing possible threats, and (4) establishing its own superiority.

Israel-Palestine conflict can be explained using David Strausz-Hupe’s theory of power urge.

Power urge is evident in both parties due to their claims on territories. The present unsolved

conflict between these two parties started from the urge of self-assertion. Due to their stand on

self-assertion, both parties each claim land for themselves. There occurs Israel’s continuous

expansion to Palestine’s territories, and Palestine is facing defensive stance from Israel over its

acquired territories. The territorial expansion of Israel backed with the unrestrained Jewish

emigration to Palestine is seen as a political maneuver of Israel to regain its dominance and

maintain control over Palestine. Israel justified its captivity of Palestinian territories i.e. West

Bank and Gaza Strip as part of its Zionist aim which is to establish a Jewish State. Territorial

claims prove the power urge of Israel to self-assertion. Palestine, on the other hand, proves to be

in line with the situation, creating actions to acquire territories that were once of their control.

Palestinians want to redraw their borders, an objective for Palestine in asserting its rights.

Apparently, conflicts between both parties are due to power urge—that is, both parties assert

their right to existence.

Right to Self-Determination

Both nations (Jewish and Palestinian) claim for the recovery of their sacred homeland

with each wanting the establishment of a sovereign state i.e. Zionist state or Arab state. It is an

inherent right of the state to assert it self-determination to ensure its survival. The right to self-

determination has been lead to the death of former empires and birth of new nation-states.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is grounded on the territorial claims of two peoples (Jews

and Palestinian Arabs). The struggle for self-determination is evident in the growing conflict

between the Zionist Jews and the Palestinian Arabs both wanting to establish an independent

19

sovereign state for its own people. The Jews are fighting for the establishment of a Jewish state

in Palestine while the Palestinians are struggling for national liberation. The different perspective

of the struggle for self-determination (Jewish perspective and Palestinian perspective) continues

to create a rift between these two nations.

Understanding the issues surrounding the conflict and grounding on the struggle for self-

determination of both nations (Jews and Palestinian Arabs), a two-state solution is the nearest

possible solution to the conflict. Since both nations are fighting for national liberation, the

creation of an independent sovereign Jewish state and an Arab state. Currently, there are two

governments existing in Palestine: the Israeli government which controls the Israeli territories

and the Palestinian National Authority which controls the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite the

international recognition of the state of Israel, there are still ongoing oppositions on recognizing

the establishment of a Jewish state coming from Arab nations and Palestinian extremist groups

who remain hostile to Israeli advances.

The establishment of a Jewish and Arab state would require the mutual recognition

coming from both parties each adhering to the demilitarization of their forces.

Deutsch’s Theory of Integration and Disintegration

Karl Wolfgang Deutsch presented the notions of integration and disintegration. He

viewed political integration as a condition that is attained by a group of people—sense of

community and strong practices and institutions that will ensure the peaceful change among its

population. He asserted that integration is a matter of settling disputes rather than resorting to

war. He also introduced two kinds of security communities—amalgamated and pluralistic

security communities. Conditions must be met for the formation of these communities. In

forming pluralistic security communities, for instance, compatibility of values among decisions,

mutual predictability of behaviour among decision-makers of units be integrated and mutual

responsiveness should be met.

In presenting solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Karl Wolfgang Deutsch pluralistic

security communities would be the best approach. Pluralistic security communities, as Deutsch

defined, are communities that have separate government that retain legal independence. In this

manner, Israel and Palestine is faced into the consequences of independence with each other.

However, this can’t be realized directly. Steps must be undertaken to attain the legal

20

independence that Deutsch has presented. Conflicts arouse because of the assertion that

territories belong to two contending parties. Deutsch’s idea of pluralistic security communities

cannot be made into full realization without reconsidering occurring scenarios. Firstly,

demilitarization of both parties is important for the realization of the end. This will provide

security for both parties, and eventually would lead to the mutual responsiveness between them.

When mutual understanding is realized, then it will be easier for the formation of legal

communities to exist. Deutsch’s notion of pluralistic security communities is an effective

solution to the existing conflict. When conditions are met, easier mutuality between parties is

possible to exist.

Summary

The conflict between Israel and Palestine can be traced back to ancient times but the

researchers opted to start during the fall of the Ottoman Empire because it was after that time

that there was really an advocacy and at the same time, an active movement aiming for the

establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The British have been mandated, after the World War I to take charge of Palestine and to

make sure that the Balfour Declaration (initiated by Zionist British leaders) will be implemented.

Opposition from the external Arab states were becoming obvious in all areas of the Israeli

border.

A UN Partition Plan of 1947, followed by the Independence of the state of Israel (only

recognized by US and the Soviet Union) has demarcated the then-territory of the Jews.

The Six Day war and the Yom Kippur War were actualizations of obvious Arab

oppositions and these wars have also changed the boundaries of the Jewish state.

Status quo tells us that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are currently governed by the

provisions of the Oslo Peace Process. The control of the two territories is gradually given to the

Palestinian National Authority. However, Israel continues to defend the external borders of Gaza

Strip to protect the Jewish settlements.

As a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the researchers employed the

theory of Deutsch and the concept of self-determination. Self-determination and Deutsch’s

theory, as explained above would advocate for a state for the Jews and a different state for the

Arabs in Palestine. From this theory, the researchers came up with a two-state solution.

21

The two-state solution of the researchers would entail demilitarization of Israel and allies

and the other camp and its allies to foster an environment where both camps are not insecure of

one attacking the other. This is very essential in providing the perfect environment for peace

processes that would last for as long as the two states exist independently. Israel then would be

recognized by Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine, being given a territory, should be recognized

as a sovereign state by Israel and the world.

Mutual recognition is very essential for both would-be states. Though Palestine,

especially Hamas, is not open to recognition of an Israeli state, providing Palestine with

conditions such as recognition, sovereignty for that matter, Palestine, might, give in.

Recognition of Israel’s sovereignty by Palestine could be an advantage for the Palestine given

that Palestine’s territory (West Bank and the Gaza Strip) are separated by a vast expanse of

Israeli governed land. A not-so-good environment, brought about by non-recognition of Israel,

for a would-be growing Palestine would be obviously disadvantageous because of geographical

advantage of Israel (surrounding Palestine). A Palestine recognizing a sovereign Israel would

eventually come to an Israel recognizing Palestine. This recognition would eventually defeat the

purpose of demilitarization. Mutual recognition is essential for a two-state solution since this

would foster better relations for both territories. Furthermore, mutual recognition would also

entail the recognition of a Jewish state by its neighboring Arab countries at the expense of an

independent sovereign Palestine.

The United Nations was a failure as a neutral party in building amicable agreements

between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs during the 1940’s. The vague demarcations of the

envisaged territory for a Jewish state have contributed to the rift between Israel and the

Palestinian Arabs.

The enforcement of demilitarization and mutual recognition shall be facilitated by a

neutral party with representatives from the Israeli government and the Palestinian National

Authority. Despite the disparities in the nationalist and extremist beliefs of both sides, eventually

both parties would give in to the proposed peace process i.e. mutual recognition and

demilitarization since a lot of blood has been spilled at the expense of fighting for a Jewish and

Arab state and both sides would eventually want an end to the conflict.

22

Chapter III

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations of the researches after

analyzing the data gathered and the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Conclusion

The Israel-Palestine conflict is rooted on the conflict between two peoples i.e. Jews and

Palestinian Arabs both claiming the same land and fighting for national liberation of their people.

Prior to the status quo, external forces have been intervening the said conflict. These

interventions worsened the situation and by then created more confusion between the concerned

nations.

The failure of the UN to act as a neutral party in the conflict has contributed to the

worsening conflict between the Zionist Jews and the Palestinian Arabs intensified by the vague

demarcations of the territorial boundaries of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine.

The researchers came up with the proposal of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

The two-state solution adheres to the establishment of an independent sovereign Israeli state and

an Arab state in Palestine. The said solution entails the mutual recognition of an Israeli and an

Arab state which will further promote amicable relations between the warring nations, thus,

achieving the path towards the conclusion of the conflict. However, this cannot be put into full

realization without demilitarization of both sides, together with the allies of both parties. Mutual

recognition would also mean the recognition of the state of Israel by its neighboring Arab

countries.

Recommendations

After thorough analysis of the study, the researchers have seen that the conflict in

between Palestine and Israel has been brought about by both external and internal factors.

23

As a supra-international congregation of nations, the United Nations should see to it that

the peace processes and all agreements between Israel and Palestine should be free from

imperialistic desires of the external actors. This is to avoid the danger that had happened in the

past where Britain, France and USA and their hidden desires had detrimental effects to the status

of Israel and Palestine. The UN, as a neutral party for all states, should make sure that

circumstances will not aggravate the already dangerous status of both territories.

As for this moment, reconciliation for both Jews and Arabs is essential to promote and

eventually maintain peace. A neutral party was being advocated by the researchers for the

establishment of two healthy states but that party must not act as a governing body, rather, a

monitoring committee.

The Arabs and the Jews in Palestine know what they really want. A compromise would

be the nearest road to peace. Hopefully, both parties would consider settling amicably.

As an issue, the Israeli Palestinian conflict has lasted for a long time. Peace has long been

desired. For political scientists, the researchers recommend for them to come up with sounder

solution/s that will only consider the interests of both parties. As of this moment, the intervention

of other states is being put in doubt, either altruistic or egoistic and by that, dependence on their

judgment is not healthy, yet, for Israel and Palestine.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pictures:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sykesmap.html

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-2.html

http://www.warchat.org/history-middle-east/arab-israel-war-1948-1949.html

http://www.planetware.com/map/israel-6-day-war-1967-and-yom-kippur-war-map-isr-isr12.htm

http://mondediplo.com/maps/westbankoslo2

http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/

Notes:

From books:

Spencer, W. (2000). Global studies: the Middle East (8th ed). Connecticut:

McGraw-Hill.

Flint, C. (2006). Introduction to Geopolitics. 270 Madison Avenue, New

York: Routledge.

From internet:

Ami Isseroff (July, 2008). Israel, Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 

(Arab Israeli Conflict)  - A brief history. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from :

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

25