Historical narratives are often times fragile and subject to "mythification". Especially
vulnerable are the ones in which interests between two groups collide, violent disputes are common
and the nature of the conflict is highly complex and distinctively unique. In those cases various
versions of the story emerge and facts become increasingly colored and embellished. The conflict
between Israel and Palestine, or should I say the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Palestinian question, falls
into the category of disputes enveloped in an aura of mysteriousness and nebulously interpreted facts.
To narrow down the actual nature of the conflict is a serious challenge, a fact which adds to its alleged
insolubility and renders it difficult to manage. This paper examines the different perspectives from
which the conflict can be examined and analyzes the ways in which the influences of foreign powers
and local leadership have greatly contributed to how the conflict has been "created" and "shaped" over
the years. As a result of the multiple dimensions the conflict has assumed throughout its development,
the various standpoints from which it is now viewed are widely dissimilar thus greatly impacting the
conflict resolution methods employed in attempting to resolve it.
[...] The non-imperialist nature of the Zionist movement is being acknowledged which, as seen by later developments, sharply contrasts with the antagonist sentiments shown towards the incoming Jewish immigrants on part of the Arabs. If Arabs and Jews are neighbours in territory”, whose mutual interests propose for a peaceful coexistence, why has such animosity surfaced once the Jewish immigrants began settling in Palestine12. Clearly, the diplomatic arrangements and secret agreements between both Jewish and Arab leadership did not necessarily reflect the situation and feelings of common people. [...]
[...] Additionally, Britain and France agreed that the two powers will jointly “negotiate with 2 Alan Dowty, p The Sykes-Picot Agreement, The Israel-Arab Reader, p the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab state”4. This arrangement was made while Britain was also engaging in a different promise-making diplomatic game. The McMahon Hussein correspondence includes statements which sharply conflict with the agreements made with France. McMahon's letter to Husain Ibn Ali, the Sherif of Mecca, in fact clearly indicated that the British support an Arab state all the regions demanded by the Sherif of Mecca” thus suggesting that the Arabs have Britain's support in unifying the Arab world under one rule5. [...]
[...] The Balfour Declaration followed the above two agreements and further contributed to the complexity of the dispute over Palestine. The former, as is common to other documents concerning the issue, makes use of language which begs for several readings. In his declaration, Mr. Arthur James Balfour states that Britain views the establishment of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine with favour provided that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”7. [...]
[...] Therefore, to begin the analysis of the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the formulation of several fundamental questions needs to take place. As a start, one may ask the following: where do these various interpretive layers to the conflict come from and how is one to discern between the relevance of each aspect of the problem to its seriousness and proposed “insolubility”? Is it too simplistic for the conflict to be reduced to a “real-estate” interest -based dispute, easily resolvable by applying a realist approach to its mitigation? [...]
[...] After examining a significant portion of the relevant literature available from the period during which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started to emerge, it becomes evident why the challenge of defining the actual nature of the conflict is an overwhelming one. The relationships between contemporary Israelis and Palestinians are in fact greatly shaped by the power dynamics and influences of a century ago. The long-lasting interplay between global powers and local leadership has directly affected the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the actual interconnection between ethnic, national, religious and purely interest-based relations in the region. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
