Obama and the Middle East Conflict

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