Obama and the Middle East Conflict
Talisha Griffin
University of Central Oklahoma
Modern Middle East
April 24,2012
ABSTRACT
Conflict
between Palestinians and Israelis has been over identity of the other
side and Israels identity as a whole for decades. Both feel neither
have the right to exist and that ones heritage is more worthy than
the other to define Israel. Israelis have had the dominant hand and
believe Palestinians have no right to exist. Palestinians believe
their right to exist and govern their own state. The issue is
Palestinians are divided amongst themselves from the Hamas and Fatah
militant. Having to address this issue means dealing with many
players with not only different, but contradictory agendas. As so,
the Israelis are divided amongst themselves. Some,
but not many, political leaders have tried to tackle this issue.
Goals of peace and unity have been attempted yet failed. Despite the
most recent attempts by others, Obama attempted to take on this issue
his first term. Obama brought in George Mitchell, a veteran of
Northern Ireland Peace Accord, to help try to settle this conflict.
This paper will address
the history of the conflict between the two groups providing a deep
historical background of the conflict, while addressing the steps
taken from the Obama Administration in resolving this conflict and
why they have failed to do so.
INTRODUCTION
Over the years these
two people have come to inhabit the same piece of territory. Violence
has been the result of this due to the two's unwillingness to find a
way to share the land and accept one another. In defending a cause
they view as singularly righteous and just, each side has inflicted
pain and misery on the other (Kamrava, 2011). Ignoring their
similarities and yet focusing on their differences, these two people
don't realize their effect on one anothers identity. Both began
predominately secular; later becoming more religious. These two
groups in the beginning were unaware of their conflicting actions and
how it shaped one anothers identity. Therefore, from an outside
perspective one could see how in reality these two groups are really
one due the others influence on the other.
The issue of identity
became present when the first of the five aliyas, in
the early 1880's,
immigrated into the Zionist settlement. Negotiation of identities
began to intensify resulting in conflict and warfare. Out of this,
the two's identity became clear; both took on a more religious
identity. This is where Zionism and Judaism took form. In the
beginning, Zionism was secular, and strongly influenced by social
justice and egalitarianism among European intellectuals as for
Judaism forming the larger cause (Kamrava, 2011). The conflict began
to rise between the two, with Zionist claiming to be rightful
inheritors of the land. They used biblical references for
justification of the land.
By 1930's and 1940's failure of the Zionist project was not an option
due to Hitlers control. At this time Hitler had control and was
punishing the Jews. For those who escaped Hitlers camps, this only
deepened the biblical conviction that the artificially created
territory called Palestine had no right to exist; this ment there was
no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian. Thus, Israelis drew more
on religious roots of
Zionism to form their
identity(Kamrava, 2011). So how did Palestinians gain their identity?
Palestinian
nationalism sparked in the 1920's due to the increase in population
from incoming Zionist immigrants, it was very territorial and
secular. Up until the intifadaI
period, which will be discussed later, Palestinians identity was
focused on what it had. Only later, in the intifada
years of 1987-93 and afterward, did the perceived failures of the secular led PLO prompt many Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories to look for other alternatives(Kamrava, 2011). This is
how Islam asserted its role in the identity of Palestinians.
Both parties are
divided within themselves. There is a division of people based off of
religion, ethnicity, and place of resident. This creates a problem
for both groups within its own society. Thus, telling us neither is
really in position of having the right to exist as the majority for
one state, due to boths conflict within its own people. We will see
how later it is viewed, more so, the Palestinians possess a problem
of division with the Hamas and Fatah, than Israelis and their
divisions with Israel Jewish inhabitants; Ashikenazim and Mizrachim.
“Jews consider themselves to belong to one of the two; Ashkenazim
and Mizrachim. Mizrachim and Sephardim are used interchangeably in
Israel, both are considered one” (Kamrava, 2011). Of the two, the
Ashikenazim are politically and economically dominant. Starting in
the mid 1970's, the Mizrachim began to see changes in both
educational and occupational opportunities. In 2000, over 50% of
Mizrachim belonged to the middle class. Many married Ashkenazim and
raised children unaware of ethnic allegiance (Kamrava, 2011).
Both Israeli's and
Palestinians have a division amongst its culture. Neither can be
found to have “one” identity; an identity that includes all
persons of the culture. This point is made to bring an understanding
to the contradictory justifications used to keep this conflict going.
Rarely can a society be found now days, that consist of true equality
for all its people. Society's now days around the world
and for centuries have
had a division of some sort amongst its people causing a social
stratification. Karl Marx and other major theorist recognized this
and used “class structure” to show how this inequality exist and
works.
With the Israeli
culture being both politically and economically dominant, the
Palestinians are seen as the minority. If we look through-out
history, the groups of individuals who have always struggled and been
subjected to the lower socioeconomic levels of society, are
represented as the minority. The minority class is usually always
subjected to an identity crisis due to the mixture of lower ethnic
groups brought together in assimilation. With the focus of the
Palestinians being the minority their weakness; as so everyone has
them, are focused on more heavily and subjected to greater criticism.
As so the Israelis, the Palestinians division in its culture with the
Hamas and Fatah has created an issue for the identity of
Palestinians. Due to its minority stature this identity crisis is
used in justification of why they cannot possess their own
independent state. Prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu uses this
reasoning in why he will not support a two state-solution (El-Khawas,
2010).
Up
until the intifada
period Palestinians had no symbolic representation. When the PNA was
established from failure of the PLO, this gave Palestinians for the
first time their own flag, anthem, president, representative assembly
(Palestinian National Council), police force, and more. These
institutions and symbols are the beginning of Palestinian identity
and recognition as people. Whether, they are still subjected to lower
standards of living and discrimination these symbols provide a sense
of identity. Also from the intifada
period the rise of non-PLO affiliates such as Hamas, ULU, and Islamic
Jihad came about. Due to the Hamas willingness to work with other
Palestinian forces, along with successful attacks against Israelis
targets; they have gained great control with the Palestinian
community. Although the support of the community is present due to
their violent means used to make their point, they have not gained
support of outside officials such as the Unites States. Like Bush,
President Obama had no intentions of dealing with Hamas until it
renounced violence, abided by past agreements, and recognize Israel's
right to exist. Unfortunately, due to the Hamas support amongst
citizens without the Hamas cooperation, the United State will never
be able to fix the problem.
Gaining an
understanding of the historical conflict between these two persons
and understanding the importance of identity, lets now look at the
Obama administrations policy to deal with this conflict, and the
steps taken to do so.
OBAMAS POLICY
Obama took on this
complex historical issue his first term and should be admired for
doing so. This conflict has been going on for to long and in reality
the conflict should not even be present. In his speech given May
22,2011, the president expressed this issue is no longer effecting
just the parties involved but outside parties as well. The
following are facts stated on the issue that need to be addressed
according to Obama.
“First,
the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing
rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both
Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and
harder -- without a peace deal -- to maintain Israel as both a Jewish
state and a democratic state. Second,
technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the
absence of a genuine peace. Third, a new generation of Arabs is
reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be
forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab
citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be
sustained”(White House, 2011).
The promises of an
independent state along with issues of unauthorized building and
expansion in occupied settlements, has long been ignored and now
Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations.
“They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace
process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World -- in
Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is
growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the
world” (White House, 2011). Obama agrees the Palestinians right to
their own independent state and that Israel should and has to accept
this in order for any conflict to be resolved. Therefore, giving rise
to the proposal of a two state-solution.
TWO STATE-SOLUTION
A two state-solution
proposal seems to be the best solution available for this issue. Due,
to both parties right to exist in reality, each need their own
independent state with their own identity to define themselves.
Tessler (1994), expressed that in order for the Middle East conflict
to be resolved both Palestinians and Israelis must accept the notion
both have the right to exist. Obama shares this view and expressed
that with Likud's prime minister in 2009. Obama’s advocacy of a
two-state solution states, Palestinians should have their own state.
His plan for land to establish a state, was in occupied territories
like East Jerusalem. The major issue Obama faces in attempting to
resolve this conflict, is getting the parties to accept and
understand that each possess a right to exist. Without this, no one
or two state can be established without conflict still present.
Likud's prime minister,
Niyamin Netanyahu, has been building and expanding settlement in the
West Bank and Gaza. In 2003, the Road Map for peace was signed with
US, Israel, and the Quartet; it was to halt all building or expansion
by Israelis in occupied territories. This failure to abide by the
agreement has left many
Palestinians upset, along with a population and space issue amongst
residents. Areas under Israelis control causing blockades to areas
such as Gaza; causing devastating effects, need to be addressed. The
cooperation of Hamas in the peace negotiation will never be present
as long as the Israelis blockade is present, which is crippling the
Gaza economy and has been doing so since 2007. Like Bush, when
negotiating a two state-solution between Israeli and Palestinian
leaders, Obama had no intention of dealing with the Hamas militant.
Unfortunately, due to Hamas gain in popularity and power; without its
support nothing can be accomplished in this peace deal. With the
understanding that without Hamas involvement no peace negotiation
could be accomplished, Obama shifted policy for aid to the two
Palestinian groups; Hamas and Fatah. Agreeing no money will directly
be given to Hamas, but instead through international agencies like
the UN, would ensure help and proper distribution(El-Khawas, 2009).
Sending in officials of the administration, Obama went in with
attempts of helping rebuild Gaza in hopes of support from
Palestinians.
The US stance of a two
state solution put George Mitchell, adviser of Obama, at odds with
negotiating with Netanyahu. Netanyahu felt the Palestinians deserved
no recognition of being a people, let alone deserve an independent
state. He said, that by establishing a Palestinian state in the West
Bank it would subject fear due to the possibility of the radical
Hamas group taking it over as they did Gaza in 2007 (El-Khawas,
2010). So instead he wished to focus on strengthening the West Bank
economy. His focus was on continuing development in the settlement
areas, expanding the Israeli territory to the point there would be
nothing left for the Palestinians. After meeting with Netanyahu and
getting no where, Mitchell met with President Mahmoud Abbas,
Palestinians president, who expressed his concerns of Netanyahu not
accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state. He felt Netanyahu
was delaying peace talk so that he could have more time to continue
expanding settlement
in the West Bank.
POLICY STAGES
Understanding that both
parties have to be brought together to discuss and agree upon on a
solution, President Obama began his mission to do so. On May 18,
2009, Netanyahu was schedule for a meeting with Obama in the Oval
Office to discuss the two state-solution. At that time it was
reported in Israel, that more than half of Israelis support a two
state-solution, while 78% percent of the citizens where willing to
live with it (Burston, 2009). With that strong support, Netanyahu
still refused to endorse the two state solution. Secretary Clinton
tried to point out that if Israel wanted strong support for its
position on Iran it cannot ignore the Palestinians peace effort.
Netanyahu, gained support from Pro-Israel Americans after his speech
that made it clear Israel doesn’t want to govern Palestinians. US
experts and former national security advisers, expressed that because
there is no Palestinian leadership within the two Palestinians
factions with which Israel could negotiate a deal, Palestinians are
indeed not capable of having a state and solving their own problems.
This view shows the contradictory justifications given in relation to
Palestinians and an independent state.
After the meeting in
May, Netanyahu gave order's to build new settlement at the outpost of
Maskiot in the northern West Bank; the first new construction in a
quarter century. This decision caused not only more conflict between
Palestinians and Israelis, but with the Obama administration as well.
This caused Obama to reinforce a cease to all settlement activity in
Israel, which was already required under the Road Map. Netanyahu
rejected Obama's demand and continued to do so. Therefore, resulting
in June 2009, the removing of unauthorized posts in the occupied
territories. This resulted in violent attacks by militant settlers
against the Palestinians.
Later in mid June
Netanyahu delivered a foreign policy speech, where he laid out a plan
to end
the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. He accepted the notion of the independent state but with
limitations and conditions. These conditions would not allow any
Palestinians power like other states; no control over its airspace
and airwaves, no power to sign treaties, and it would have to have
the Israeli military stationed along its borders. One can understand
these conditions provide no room for a true statehood. Atleast, not
the independent state Palestinians had in mind. Israelis can be
looked at as having said “Yes” to Palestinians numerous times in
attempts for peace, so why are Palestinians saying no to these
agreements?
Well as so any
human-being we possess a desire for free-will. To be able to live
life in ways that satisfy us is a desire we all have no matter the
culture. So why do we not expect a reaction from people when we try
to take away their free-will to control them. Palestinians did not
agree with Netanyahu's proposal of a two state-solution due to its
conditions. While Netanyahu seemed to be focused on peace talk, there
were expansions taking place in settlement areas as he was talking
about peace. Mitchell tried for weeks to get Netanyahu to agree to a
complete freeze in building in settlement areas; one because it
effected talks of peace and two because it was agreed in the Road Map
for the halt on any building or expansion. Once again reiterating the
same agreement with Netanyahu, he continued expansion.
With Mitchell unable to
reach an agreement with Netanyahu, Obama tried to get back on track
in reference to a peace agreement. Trying to over look this problem
will get no one anywhere in relation to peace talk between these two
parties. Netanyahu cant even show respect in abiding by national
agreements in relation to settlements, what makes anyone think he
will respect a peace agreement. Thinking he could overlook the
settlement issue and focus on the peace talk, Obama held separate
meetings with Netanyahu and Abbas to show his efforts in commitment
to the peace process. In his meeting he tried to focus on peace talks
only and not issues about settlement freeze. With this the Israeli
side was pleased and Netanyahu announced that talks of peace do not
and should not have to be dependent on a freeze of Israeli
settlement. Leaving the Palestinians unaware of these discussion,
Israel continued settlement expansion on lands that the Palestinians
claimed for a future state. Palestinians knew when Netanyahu began
talks of peace, it was all a distraction to take the focus off
development. Hard for the administration to negotiate peace without
dealing with the settlement expansion, Obama finally realized they
were getting no where in negotiation of settlement freeze and called
on Israel to implement the Road Map. This of course pleased the
Israeli side but left the Palestinians displeased.
Abbas, who agreed for a
full settlement freeze, announced after the summit that a partial
freeze was unacceptable because it would maintain the status quo
(El-Khawas, 2010). Obama and the US creditability suffered amongst
the Arab and Muslim world. In his effort to regain his creditability
and restart talks of peace, he told the UN General Assembly that he
will not give up on his plan of peace and the US does not accept the
settlement expansions,and talks of peace should continue. Netanyahu
accepted Obama's proposal of talk of peace, but would not freeze
settlement in the West Bank. Netanyahu's lack of cooperation made it
difficult for Abbas to enter negotiations of peace talk. He stated,
freezing settlement in the West Bank and Israels withdrawal to the
1967 lines must be agreed upon prior to the start of talks
(El-Khawas, 2010).
POLICY EFFECT
Looking at the steps
the Obama administration took in handling this issue will help us
understand why this policy didn't work. The first mistake in Obama's
approach to resolve this conflict, was not looking at the conflict
from a historical and environmental perspective. Two, his involvement
in the settlement expansion put him on ice with Palestinians because
this matter would have to be addressed and resolved before he would
gain full support from the party.
Trying to address this
complex issue requires an understanding of the history. Not just
history from academia but real history from the people. The spark
that started this fire was ethnocentrism. The belief that ones
culture is superior of all others. This concept of superiority and
power has led us to conflict amongst ourselves. We must began to
understand, yes we are different in our personality’s but we are
the same kind, and what makes us different from any other, is our
ability to reason and rationalize. If one understood the conflict
that persist between these two, one would understand that neither
deserves more than the other. Rather, they both deserve the same.
Neither deserves power over the over, but both deserve to govern
themselves. With this understanding anyone who wishes to resolve this
conflict must be steadfast in this understanding and enforce it.
When Obama got
involved in the settlement freeze and took effort to try to fix it,
it turned the spotlight on him from Palestinians. Since the intifada
period when
Palestinians gained a sense of identity and symbols to represent
that, the major issue was on territory to occupy its people.
Subjected to the West Bank and Gaza, after years of assimilation the
population size has increased and become crowded resulting in
devastating economic effects. With Israeli's control of the borders
many Palestinians have not been able to venture out of the West Bank
and Gaza. As the population of the Palestinians grow within these
areas, Israeli's have been found to be migrating to these occupied
areas. This has provided justification for Netanyahu to continue
expansion in settlements areas due to Israelis occupants.
In 2003, when the Road
Map was signed Israel was expected to comply. When they failed to do
so deliberately it caused more problems for Palestinians. Forcing
them to focus on getting Israelis to freeze settlement expansion in
their occupied territories. The simple fact is that Israel has no
excuse that can justify this development. Obama wanted to step in and
try to handle this problem but in the end he gave into Netanyahu's
illegal actions and did not stand steadfast in the agreement. Doing
this showed the Palestinians that Obama could not hold to his word or
enforce policies that are already implemented. Unable to implement
policies in place that were agreed upon by both Israel and the
United States, showed
he would not be able to implement a new policy of peace.
CONCLUSION
The Middle East
conflict has been present for centuries. Many have tried to resolve
this conflict but have failed. The reason for this, is because no one
has been able to stand steadfast with both parties. The only way this
conflict can be resolved is by the parties themselves working it out.
Trying to bring in a mediator to bring the two together has shown to
fail. This conflict is rooted deep in the heart of the people, and
only the people themselves can fix it. We have to understand, we as
people our in control of ourselves. Yes, people can manipulate you
into doing things but in the end the choice is yours. No one can make
these people understand the others worth and value. Nor, can they
make them forgive each other or come to an agreement, both have the
right to exist. Them, themselves have to make that choice and carry
out the actions to do so.
Obama's steps taken to
try to resolve this conflict have failed and left him with no further
progress in resolving the issue since 2011. His meetings did allow
the parties to come together and express their opinions to one
another which had not been done in a while. Although, they had the
freedom to express their views, they also had the freedom not to
agree. We have to understand at this point there is nothing we can do
to resolve this conflict. This is something that has to be resolved
amongst the people themselves. Without their cooperation, the
conflict will perceive to exist amongst the two, which is the whole
issue. All we can do as an outside source is provide help where
needed. We can not be bias of another, but help both to show them
they are no different than the other.
REFERENCE
Burston,
B. (2009).Obama, Netanyahu and two States for Spoiled Brats. Haaretz.
Retrieved on April 21,
2012 from, www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086355.html
El-Khawas, M. A.
(2010). Obama and the Middle east Peace Process: Challenge and
Response.
Mediterranean
Quarterly, 21:1, 19.
Kamrava, M. (2011). The
Modern Middle East. Berkley and Los Angles, CA. University of
California
Press.
Tessler, M. (1994). A
History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bloomington,IN. Indiana
University
Press.
White House. (2011).
Remarks by the Presidant at the AIPAC Policy Conference 2011.
Washington, D.C.
Retrieved
on April 21,2012 from, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2011/05/22/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-2011
