israel and the world – final exam

Israel and the World – Final Exam Winter 2010

Part 1:

What were the main results of the 1967 War?

The main results of the 1967 war can be divided in three categories: political,

economical and security; with regional and international implications. By defeating

Egypt and Syria and Jordon, Israel was able to curtail the rise of Arabism ideology. More

specifically, Israel tarnished Nasser’s (the Egyptian President) political image and

capabilities infront of the world, the Arabs, and the Egyptians. Nasser had been

sponsoring anti-monarchy movements throughout the Middle East. The Saudi Royal

House was especially more than glad to have Nasserism halted. Moreover, Nasser lost

his international charisma forcing him to accept USSR guardianship and more foreign

influence in Egypt. Israel also forced the Arab leaders to divert their attention towards

internal matters giving rise to nationalism (as in Egyptian or Jordanian instead of Arab),

leading to the birth of an independent Arab Palestine identity. In addition, Israel attracted

United States – and lost France who wanted to gain a more Arab-Friendly country – by

showing itself as a powerful and capable ally. Israel, also, gave the United States access

to USSR technology through captured equipment during the fighting. At the same time,

political power shifted from the hands of the Arabs to Israel as the later can dictate rules

of engagement and conditions for peace.

The economical results carried a mixed bag of blessings and curses. Egypt lost, in

addition to the territory of Sinai Peninsula, 1/3 of its income due to closure of Suez Canal

causing a severe rescission. Oil Kingdoms paid for Egypt’s economic losses in exchange

for Nasser supporting their legitimacy. Israel gained economical freedom, still, Arab

government issued sanctions against Israel and other countries conducting business with

Pierre N. Demian – UCI Student id # 18103312


Israel. Still, Israel used the opportunity to establish a more powerful economic base by

focusing on innovative agriculture methods and promoting Israel’s two prime natural

resources, human capital and education. Jordon suffered greatly as the West Bank and

Jerusalem came under the control of Israel. The world superpowers, United States and

USSR, also began making client states in the area. The United States focused on

expanding corporation with Israel and Iran. USSR came in aid of the losing collation by

assisting and strengthening Nasser’s (providing funds for the High Dam) and Syria, with

much more limited assistance to Jordon.

Regarding security, military weakness of the Arab states was exposed. Israel,

smaller and poorer in comparison with its neighbors, used inventive tactics to balance and

pacify its enemies. The quick victory helped Israelis to gain a new national pride in their

new nation. Military loses suffered by Arab states were replaced by USSR. Peace never

materialized as the Arab states made the Khartoum declaration. United Nations tried to

solve the conflict by issuing Resolution 242, commonly known as “Land for Peace”.

Israel began settlement construction in occupied territory to form a barrier zone between

Israel main land and hostile forces (settlements were established also to provide housing

for families of the Israeli military). In addition, Israel emerged as dominate military force

in the area with air force capable of reaching Cairo and Damascus. Egypt replied by

starting War of Attrition and supporting Palestine Liberation Organization actions.

In the West Bank and Gaza, Israel introduced new policies. Basic democratic

values, such as freedom of press and speech, were granted for the first time to the

inhabitants. Israel established health care and educational system which resulted in rapid

economic growth and drop in infant death rates. At the same time, Israel administered



Sinai and Golan heights (which Israel won from Egypt and Syria). The later one is more

important because it was used to shell Israel towns below.

What are the key similarities and differences between the PLO and Hamas Charters, and how do the differences reflect the changing phases of Arab/Palestinian opposition to Israel?

Although both Charters hold similarities, each one seeks legitimacy through a

separate tool. PLO uses political-secular rhetoric while Hamas relies heavily on religious

edicts and shari’a (Islamic code of law). Both call on destruction of the state of Israel and

don’t accept UN or other internationally recognized documents. The following Table

shows the comparison between the two.

Palestine Liberation Organization

Hamas

Foundation In the middle of 1960s, as a dependent arm of “resistance” to launch terrorist attacks on Israel. During its beginning, PLO operated mainly from Gaza, but later Jordon, then Lebanon and then moved to Morocco until 1990s

At the end of the 1980s, as an offshoot from Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas won the hearts and minds of many Palestinians by becoming the only viable opposition group to Fatah rule. Hamas used social programs to promote suicide bombings and attract supporters

Charter Size 33 articles 36 articlesSupport Various Arab states Hezbollah, Syria and Iran (not

spelled out in Hamas Charter). Claims heritage from Muslim Brotherhood (article 2)

Palestine Importance

Vanguard to Arab identity (article 14) and a united Arab front (article 12)

The idea of concentric rings where Palestine is the inner ring. Islam is the outer circle and Arabs is the second housing circle (article 14)

Israel and Zionist

movement

Zionism must be eliminated (article 15) and outlawed by all other nations (article23). Israel is an illegal state (article 19)

Evil created by the Zionist organization that will continue until Islam destroys it (opening statement). They are challengers to Islam and Muslims (article 29) who conspire to create a kingdom from Nile to Euphrates (article 32)



Tools for Independence

National unity, national mobilization and national liberation (article 11). In addition, armed struggled, including commando action (article 10), with both tactical phase and armed popular revolution (article 9). This is called war of liberation (article 27)

Islamic resistance (article 4). “Jihad” is the method (articles 8 and 13). Hamas identifies Jihad in a number of ways including the role of uprising children and armed struggle. Arab countries are to support “fighters” in infiltrating Israel (article 28)

Historical phase of creation

During the rise of the revolutionary period after the Arab armies were defeated a couple of times on the hands of Israel. West Europe and United States were seen and identified as imperial power. Nasser helped to create it and offered material and financial assistance

After Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and First Gulf War (Iraq vs. Iran), a sense of loss came on the Arabs giving rise to fundamentalist thought based on the Old Islamic Empire. At the same time, separate national feelings took over causing Arab rulers to ignore or distant themselves from the Palestine question. In addition, PLO lacked establishment over the Palestine territories

Jews To be considered Palestinians if they lived in the area prior to “Zionist invasion” (article 6)

Conquered Jerusalem and desecrated the Holy City and prophet Muhammad (article 29)

Where Palestine

ought to be

Within the boundaries it had during the British Mandate (article 2)

At the crossroad of the continents (article 34). It is an Islamic Waqf (article 11)

International Declarations

Null and void: Balfour Declaration, Mandate for Palestine and Partition Plan of 1947 (articles 19 and 20)

Peaceful resolutions are against the principle of Hamas (article 13)

What peace proposal did Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak make in 2000-2001, and what was PA President Yasser Arafat’s response? (Be specific about how it addressed each of the “final status” issues of the Oslo Accords.)

Following the Oslo Accords, peace between Israel and PA seemed possible.

Having lived in Egypt close during this period, I can remember vividly how hopes of a

final solution were high, particularly after media outlets showed images of progress and

improvements in Gaza and West Bank. Ironically, reality was different. The peace



process broke down due to “final status” issues that were not solved. In an effort to

restart the process, Ehud Barak, Israeli Prime Minister, risked his political career by

offering close to 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza Strip. Because Israeli

settlements were part of the major blocks in face of the Oslo Accords, Ehud Barak was

welling to uproot Israeli settlements within the PA borders. Regarding issue of

Jerusalem, Ehud offered PA to share Jerusalem. As for the refuge question, Ehud put a

30 billion dollars refugee fund to help Jewish and Palestinian refugees. Still, the PA

denied the offer because PA wanted all of Jerusalem, both sides lacked “meeting of the

minds” regarding the idea of peace and Arafat also lacked the power to unite the

Palestinians.

Ehud Barak participation in 2000 Camp David was meant to complete the Oslo

Accords “final status” issues. Security had been the major issue causing Israel to limit

withdrawal of forces. PA lacked authority and control over separate terrorist groups who

operated from Gaza and West Bank. Prior to Camp David II, Israel withdrew from 40%

of West Bank and 80% of Gaza. PA security forces failed to halt terrorist attacks which

were causing loss of both Israeli life and property. Another road block was, and

continues to be, “the right of return”. PA wanted to allow refugees to return back to their

former lands, Israel refuses because it already absorbed many Arab refugees, in addition

to absorbing all the Jewish refugees. Third, exact borders between Israel and the new

state were never agreed upon. Forth, settlement construction continued despite the talks.

Israel evacuated some settlements, but not all. Fifth, Israel wanted the PLO charter

amended to include an acceptance of Israel. President Clinton, the mediator, found that

Arafat was in complete denial about Jewish origins in Jerusalem. Sixth, Ehud greatly



doubted Arafat’s abilities and capabilities to deliver a sold agreement. Hamas started to

gain power in Gaza, and PA security forces exceeded the amount approved. In addition,

PA greatly mishandled funds given by international donors, such as EU. And finally,

Arafat’s double talk gave two pictures, a smile in face of Israel and a curse in its back.

For example, Arafat would tell Ehud one thing and the Arab media another thing.

What aspects of Israeli history and society have you learned from this course that tend to be absent from media reporting and general discussions about Israel and the conflict? How do you think public discussion of Israel and the conflict would change if these aspects were included, and how will they affect how you evaluate news reports?

Aspects of Israeli history and society that tend to be absent from media reporting

and general discussions about Israel and the conflict can be divided into three categories:

advancement, civility and security issues. Although I am Egyptian, I must admit Israel’s

role in advancing society as a whole in the field of political negations and sound state

building. Growing up, I was always taught that Israel is an American creation; such a

view was greatly negated by this class. Israel is a state unique in abilities. It came into

existence surrounded by hostilities outside and inside. The Jews did their part by offering

their neighbors plenty of opportunities to take a peaceful road instead of armed struggle.

Israel managed to establish a good democracy and uphold principles of good living in a

destroyed land. The territory commonly referred to as Palestine was dead land. Jewish

immigrants toiled the land and invented new agriculture methods to turn marshes and

swamps into farms. Israel also offered a home for more than Jews. It is the only country

in the Middle East where Christians aren’t persecuted. By investing in its population and

educational system, Israel produced a hefty amount of scientists, who through their

research, technological and pharmaceutical advances were reached.



In civility, Israel is always forgotten. Recently, Israel sent medics who set up the

first field hospital in Haiti after a horrible earthquake. Israel became home of more than

the Jewish people by offering refuge to displaced and unwanted groups. I remember

being surprised to learn about the Vietnamese, aka “boat people”, being allowed to live

and prosper in Israel. The class also negated the myth of pure Jewish state. Many

different ethnic Arab groups live in Israel such as Druze and Bedouins. As for the legal

system, Israel offers an equal opportunity for all those who seek justice through the rule

of law. In recent news, Israeli officers had been arrested and undergoing trial for

apparent violations against Palestinians

(http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.police.investigation/index.html?

iref=allsearch). Such equality even led the son of a Hamas leader to become an agent of

Israel in order to counter terrorists

(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/04/aman.son.hamas.spy.israel.cnn?

iref=allsearch).

The final category, security, completes the puzzle. Geography of Israel creates

unique security questions. An average car trip from the West Bank to Israeli shore town

is no more than 20 minutes. Israel constantly must defend itself from terrorist attacks and

existential threats – such as Iran – while adhering to higher regulations. In addition, I

was greatly surprised by the two IDF soldiers. They were not monsters or mobsters or

degenerates; rather, they are educated people with great articulation to address a variety

of topics. Truly, if Arab soldiers were ever to reach such a level, then maybe a solution

can be reached. The last security issue relates to the West Bank. The media uses check

points and security fence to stimulate interest and gain ratings. Instead of showing the


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/04/aman.son.hamas.spy.israel.cnn?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/04/aman.son.hamas.spy.israel.cnn?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.police.investigation/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/israel.police.investigation/index.html?iref=allsearch


full story and giving equal consideration to both sides, media constantly favors

Palestinians who don’t even respect media freedom.

Public opinion will greatly change in favor f Israel if such information were made

known. Israel enjoys a great negative image except in some Western Democracies. The

United Nations had not helped the situation as Israel is condemned by more UN

resolutions than any other nation. Finally, after taking this course, I will be able to better

judge the truth value within a given article or news report. I can also connect actions

with history in proper contexts which can shed light on recent events.

Part 2:

Some analysts claim that the ongoing conflict between Israel and its neighbors is simply a territorial dispute while others claim it is about Israel’s existence, not its borders or settlements. Which position would you support, and why?

The ongoing conflict between Israel and its neighbors is a mixture of both

positions. Israel’s neighbors had been enemies of this young state. Many leading Arab

figures made claims against Israel depending on the era and each one’s goals. Those

claims went beyond territorial disputes into vows of total destruction. Issues regarding

borders and settlements were and continue to be incorporated within such rhetoric which

evolved over three phases that followed 1948 War of Independence.

In the 1950s, Nasser threatened Israel’s existence in order to expand Arabism

ideology (first phase) and solidify his socialist ideology in the region. Nasser also used

Israel to gain legitimacy for his actions abroad (involvement in Yemen) and to divert

attention away from internal issues. After losing in 1967, the Arab League made the

infamous Khartoum Declaration with three NOs directed towards Israel and its peace.



Still, the defeat of 1967 changed Arab political ideology from a unified front into

separate national ideology (second phase). This helped to bring stability in the area after

War of 1973. Egypt signed a peace treaty recognizing Israel’s right of existence in

exchange of Israel returning territory of Sinai. Ironically, Palestinian national identity

was created as a result and PLO became a throne in Israel’s side. Following a policy of

terror and assassination, PLO threatened Israel and Israelis worldwide. The PLO Charter

denies Israel’s right of existence.

After Iraq and Iran fought each other to a standstill, secular ideology gave way to

fundamentalist thought (third phase). Hamas and Hezbollah carried the banner of

“struggle against infidels”. Both terrorist organizations rose to power in areas bordering

mainland Israel. Each enjoys wide support, with many dedicated followers and funding

from a variety of Arab and non-Arab nations. Moreover, both gained access to political

legitimacy in their area through open ballot elections. In 2006, Israel had to rely on its

military forces, IDF, to halt daily rocket attacks and cross border guerrilla missions

conducted by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. By 2008, Israel was forced to make

incursions into Gaza in order to halt similar threats.

Adding more trouble, the ruling Islamic regime in Iran had been using the

Palestinian card for their favor. Facing 27% plus unemployment and staggering United

States military presence in the region, Iran’s ruling regime took the flag of the Palestine

question to raise support for their nuclear program. Because of Iran’s limited military

capabilities, Iran have been engaging Israel through sponsoring anti-Israel groups,

partially Hezbollah.



Israel had made good attempts to burn the Palestine card by offering a number of

peaceful resolutions to the Palestine Authority. Settlements, borders and Jerusalem

emerge as blocking points allowing PA to run away from peace. Israel offered PA a land

swap for territories occupied by some settlements while disbanding others. Borders were

never setup because an independent Palestinian state was never declared. Currently,

there is only a Palestinian territory. As for Jerusalem, I am highly in favor of keeping in

safe hands, meaning Israel’s. Jerusalem is the most renowned Holy City in the world.

Since 1967 War, Israel kept Jerusalem open to all people. The city had grown and

prosperity achieved. Why should Israel even think about allowing the PA, who failed

miserably in Gaza and West Bank, to touch such an important place? Most likely, if the

PA enters Jerusalem, the city will experience poverty and destruction of Holy sites.

Furthermore, the PA was only successful in leaving the gate open for terrorists to attack

Israel, promoting the later to establish check points and perform gradual withdrawal from

disputed territories. Finally, Israel had already made huge concessions to the PA and

achieved peace with Egypt and Jordon, what did the other side do?

Why do many observers claim that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is as much a war of narratives, or a mix of propaganda and facts, as a battle on the ground? Discuss why you would agree or disagree with this judgment.

The conflict between Israel and Palestinians is a war of narratives as much as a

battle on the ground. Each side had developed arguments to counter the other side in

support of their own. Each side made good use of media outlets in order to ensure world

wide support (with limitations). And finally, each side mixed propaganda with facts to

better serve its own objectives.



Such tactics were very clear after failure of Camp David II talks. Palestine

Authority came out claiming Israel offered a “Swiss Cheese” territory full with check

points and divided by various Israeli settlements. Israel said it offered “too much”; and

due to “security” concerns, the territory offered will be governed by Israeli troops.

Refugees always make the best narrative. PA wanted to extend the right of return to all

Arabs who lived in the area prior to 1948 War and their lineage. Israel refugee narrative

is very different. Israel highlights how international organizations have been helping

Arab refugees while no help was offered to Jewish refugees. Israel also contends the

“right of return” as means to unite Jews with their culture homeland.

Another good example of war of narratives is 1967 War. Palestinians claim that it

was a hostile military action to destroy “bonds” of Arabism. Israel identifies 1967 War

as preeminent strike because it faced definite and real external threats against its

statehood. This vocabulary is being reused again in relation to Iran, and its support to

Hezbollah and Hamas, nuclear capabilities. The infamous Project Daniel

(http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/07spring/beres.pdf) gives justification

for Israel to use nuclear arms against existential threats. Palestinians and Arabs in

general, view the same report as a roadmap to destruction.

Narratives between the two sides had also taken its own realm. Socialist leaders,

such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, came out criticizing Israel. In response, the

guardians of open market economy, such as United States and England, present solid

support for Israel and constantly blame PA for staling peace talks. Media outlets joined

the game. By extracting perfect sound bites, media can sell news better than before.


http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/07spring/beres.pdf


Media executives turned the conflict into profit generating machine as their ratings are

steady.

Furthermore, the war of narratives made its way into the United Nations.

Palestinians are constantly labeling Israel’s actions as “war crimes” or “crimes against

humanity”. Such narrative found great and substantial report after Goldstone Report was

made public recently. Palestinians went even to Spain and filed lawsuits against Israel’s

government. Pro-Israel bloc called the report bias and unfounded. Ironically, the report

holds the last name of distinguished Jewish figure, Justice Richard Goldstone, who led

the independent fact finding mission. The report also blames Hamas as well as Israel for

war crimes. Bias claims by Israel are not very strong in this instance.

At the end, the conflict between Israel and Palestinians had greatly been a

narrative war as an armed battle. Both sides are great at blaming each other. While the

blame game is being played out in narratives, common people on the streets of Tel Aviv,

Gaza and Ramallah are living in fear. On both sides, future generations are growing old

on principles of conflict not resolutions. It comes as nothing new to hear of another

missile strike, suicide bombing or assassination form the “Holy Land”. Unless both sides

are willing to ease the narrative and uphold part of the blame, there will never be a

peaceful resolution … only blood and tears.

Discuss the roles played in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by super powers and other states in the region since 1948. How much have they helped to resolve the conflict, and how much have they fueled it?

World super powers are in the habit of utilizing every opportunity to further their

interests. Since the beginning of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, world super powers created

camps, formed alliances, provided support, and to some extent, fueled the conflict. Since



the creation of the state of Israel, world powers greatly doubted if the new state will

continue to exist. Israel was surrounded by older Arab nations who have established

armed forces and connections to industrial nations. In addition, Israel lacked natural

resources.

Immediate preferred treatment was given to Arabs and Arab refugees. Israel and

Jewish refugees were highly ignored. During the early 50s, USSR sought to increase its

influence in the area by supporting Israel. United States stood neutral in action between

the two sides. Britain continued to be hostile to Israel. After Nasser reached power in

Egypt and the Suez Canal was nationalized, Britain and France approached Israel seeking

assistance in an attack on Egypt. The war of 1957 brought favorable trade British and

French agreements to Israel. The United States stepped in and demanded that both

France and England to withdrew their forces. Israel withdrew as well but after securing

free access to Gulf of Aqba.

The following years saw relative peace, but with increased hostilities between

Arabs and Israel. USSR began selling weapons and arming Arab regimes in the area

particularly both Egypt and Syria. France was the only significant world power to offer

Israel access to modern weapon systems. Facing danger of war, Israel launched pre-

emanates strike against its enemies. The speed, power and military brilliance of the

operation attracted eyes of the United States who was seeking to establish a reliable ally

in the oil rich region. At the same time, relations between Arabs and USSR increased

more after war of 1967. Israel offered the United States access to Soviet technology

through captured equipment. In exchange, the United States began pursuing QME

(Qualitative Military Edge) policy ensuring Israel’s access to better military equipment.



At the same time, the United States refused to accept “either pro-Arab or pro-Israel”

policy. Cooperation between Tel Aviv and Washington resulted in long term prosperity

and establishment of powerful and deep economic and culture ties.

In 1973, the balance changed. France had already moved to the Arab camp. The

United States mediated peace agreement between Cairo and Tel Aviv. This helped Israel

to finally get official recognition as a state by an Arab country. Egypt also moved away

from USSR camp and a huge gap was created between different Arab states. USSR

continued to support Syria. Ina addition, PLO entered the picture. Launching operations

from Jordon, PLO gained attention of the world quickly. According to lecture notes,

many nations began making payments to PLO in order to avoid PLO operations against

their interests. The movie “Munich” makes such a claim including the United States as

part of the payers. After Black September, major world powers intervened to relocate

PLO to Lebanon and later to Morocco.

In general, PLO, as most revolutionary movements of that era, was supported by

USSR. United States aid to Israel also increased as part of the peace treaty with Egypt.

But this all changed in the 90s. The USSR failed. Arafat support to Iraq’s invasion of

Kuwait greatly alienated Arab support to PLO cause. Jordon and Israel signed a peace

treaty. In addition, the United States established new allies in the region. Seeing his

power base fading away, Arafat finally came to the negotiations table resulting in the

Oslo Accords (2nd direct talks) after prolonged talks in Madrid (1st direct talks).

United States continued to pressure both Palestinian Authority (established after

Oslo Accords) and Israel to work out a two state solution. Europe acted as a whole block

under European Union umbrella. Both United States and EU, in addition to the UN,



offered incentives for both sides to move the peace process faster. Ironically, PA was full

of corruption and lacked accountability and oversight. Funds disappeared and democratic

reforms were never achieved. Projects stayed in the blue print and grounds of Gaza and

West Bank didn’t improve. In addition, terrorist attacks increased.

Again, United States brought both sides together in Camp David II. President Clinton

acted as a mediator between two sides to solve issues left over from Oslo Accords. Camp

David didn’t achieve much except arousing feelings of hostilities. It also highlighted the

inability of Arafat to govern.

During President Bush Junior, Road Map was proposed. It was suppose to be a

plan to set deadlines for each side to complete Oslo Accords. September 11 attacks and

attitude of Palestinians towards this tragedy altered American position from being neutral

to more realistic. At the same time, Russia emerged from her grave and began taking

asking for her role back. In order for the United States to generate support to invasion of

Iraq, United States found itself having to reengage PA in an attempt to bridge the gap in

talks with Israel. The United States pressured PA to allow for democratic reforms. In

2006, Hamas – terrorist organization – won elections in Palestine sending shock waves in

the Western World. Both United States and Israel don’t recognize Hamas as a legitimate

political entity to hold negotiations.

Finally, world powers used and continue to use Palestinian-Israel conflict. This

usage resulted in progress of peace talks and creation of some new problems. In my

opinion, there were never new problems; rather, there are problems that were never

addressed. Palestinians are greatly depended on international aid. How will a new

Palestinian state survive without such aid? What form of government will a new



Palestinian state hold? How can Israel guarantee its own security? Maybe, global

cooperation between world powers can provide effective answers if only interests of

Palestinians and Israel were addressed without “policy riders”


israel and the world – final exam

Documents