• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
05.02.2009

PALESTINIAN DRAMA

   

Araks Pashayan

palestinephysical (original)In 1947 in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 187/II, two states had to be created on the territory of Palestine: one Arab and one Jewish. 14.1 thousand square km or 56% of the Palestine territory were given to Israel and 11.1 thousand square km or 43%1 of the territory were given to Arabs. In fact the partition of Palestine was made in favour of Jews, because at that moment or even after Jewish immigration, Arabs in Palestine were three times as much as Jews. The immigration of Jews, their settlement in Palestine and finally the creation of Jewish state caused the opposition of Palestinians which has transformed into a permanent confrontation. The main omission of Arabs was the fact they could not put up with the creation of Israeli state and the UN resolution and did not create their own independent country and this let Israelis in the future (during the wars between Arabs and Israel in 19482 and 19683) occupy the whole territory of Palestine, which caused a big wave of Palestinian refugees.

Since December 27, 2008, Israel has initiated air strikes and then ground military campaign against Gaza Strip (a part of the Palestinian Authority). It had been blocked for 18 months and was in grip of crisis4. According to the Israeli official statements the Israel Defense Forces aimed to prevent missile fire on the territory of Israel and according to Israeli minister of defense Ehud Barak their purpose was to destroy “terrorist infrastructure”. On the press-conference on December 27 prime-minister E. Olmert told that the main aim of that war was the security of the southern part of the country.

It is not excluded that on this stage of confrontation Israel, in all appearance, pursues the aim to expel “Hamas”5, which does not recognize Israel’s right on the statehood, from the political field, to occupy Gaza strip, striking the ambitions of creation of the independent Arab state in Palestine and their claims for Jerusalem. We may say that Israeli military operation in Gaza looked like a score-settling with Palestinians who lived under “Hamas” authority.

On January 18 Israel gave way to the efforts of intermediary powers and announced one-side cease-fire, and in 12 hours “Hamas” also announced cessation of fire for a week in order to allow Israelis withdraw their troops. Many analysts supposed that it would happen just before the inauguration of the new US president B. Obama.

It is significant that both sides constitute themselves winners. The leader of “Hamas” in Gaza I. Haniya assessed the result of the war as “a glorious victory”, while E. Olmert assured the leaders of the European countries who visited Jerusalem that they had achieved their main aim to weaken “Hamas”, eliminated the threat to their country and promoted to the stable cease-fire.

But anyway, the confrontation between two parties still goes on. Israel has not specified the time-schedule of the withdrawal of its troops anticipating that military actions may be resumed by Palestinian side anytime. And “Hamas’ stated that they will go on resisting until Israel fully withdraw its troops from Gaza. “Hamas” demands from Israel to end the blockade and open the boarders.

There were different points of view expressed by various international, including Arab and Islamic, circles on the Israeli military operation and “Hamas” counteractions. At the beginning of the war, which coincided with Christmas festivities and New Year celebrations in the Christian world, information war was decided in Israel’s favour. A number of powerful states of the European Union (including Germany), and the US called for amicable settlement of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but proceeding from the military collaboration with Israel, they regarded “Hamas” as the only side responsible for the current situation. They mentioned that Israel has a lawful right to protect its territory and population from terrorist attacks.

It is peculiar that there was some criticism of “Hamas” on behalf of Arab world. They accused “Hamas” of using their people as a “human shield”, of placing their bases in inhabited areas and finally, of instigating Israel to anti-Palestinian actions. And sometimes the activity of “Hamas” was connected with Iran, which interferes into Arab problems and is supposed to be one of the forces patronizing it. And on December 31 2008, on the special meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs of Arab countries in Cairo, the minister of foreign affairs of Saudi Arabia Saud Ay-Feysal supposed that one of the main reasons of Palestinians’ tragedy was their internal discrepancy, i.e. the confrontation between “Hamas” and “Fatah”. But in accordance with some particular opinions expressed in Arab circles if “Hamas” could resist to such a large-scale attack, this might already be regarded as a success.

Israeli aggression in Gaza caused indignation in Arab and Muslim world, including Muslim communities of Europe. In many capitals all over the world anti-Israeli demonstrations took place, traditional anti-Israeli discourse was put into requisition in Arab world again. Sometimes anti-Israeli propaganda received extremist accents (with invokes to destroy Israel) particularly in the circles of Islamic religious figures.

There was also some criticism in the address of Egypt, which did not open Rafah border crossing (but for some cases) and for which Cairo had its own reasoning. Since June 2007, when Gaza strip of Palestine Authority occurred under the control of “Hamas”, Egypt has closed Rafah, saying that they will open it only after that crossing has passed under the control of Palestine Authority, Israel and international “quartet”. Moreover, Cairo removed their diplomatic mission to the West Bank. It is significant that Egypt, as well as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, anticipate that Islamic religious and political movement “Hamas” may extend its influence on their countries.

As a rule, Arab administrations were contented with the criticism to the address of Israel without running riots though Arab society always expects more rigid position from their authorities. Saud Al-Feysal determined Israeli actions as a crime against humanity. The foregoing position of Arab states, which study their own geopolitical interests, from now on is an unchanged reality, and the ideas of Arab unity and Islamic solidarity has always played propagandistic role. In this context the rigid and tough position of Syria (one of the main parties in Arab-Israeli conflict and states, supporting “Hamas”) stands out. It is not a mere chance that influential political figures of “Hamas” work in Damask.

It is significant that the reaction of Turkey, one of the main actors in the region, was in some degree anti-Israeli, and this was connected with the pro-Islamic position of the ruling Justice and Development Party. The prime-minister Erdogan stated that Allah will punish Israel for its inhuman acts in Gaza.

In the course of further battle actions, pro-Israeli propaganda ceded due to the numerous victims among children and women and thousands of wounded helpless people, which was headlined by well-known Arab TV channels and mainly by “Al Jazeera”.

After all, what have the parties won and what have they lost in that war? The resistance of “Hamas” had drastic consequences for Gaza and its people, who paid a high cost for that. In the course of war more than 1300 Palestinians diseased, among them 300 children. The number of wounded was more than 5000. There were about 20 thousand resident buildings destroyed and thousands of people were left without shelter. All infrastructures of Gaza were paralyzed. It will require a lot of time for the region to end the international isolation and get over social and economical crisis.

As for “Hamas”, it has made most of the war. It could on the whole preserve its leadership, armed troops (though the movement had lost many fighters of al-Qassama brigades) and, which is most important, their authority in Gaza. According to some researches, the rating of “Hamas” in Palestine (and also in Arab world) will rise. It is remarkable that after the war PA president Mahmud Abbas who has legitimacy in international community, offered “Hamas” to create coalitional government. By the way, Abbas has also benefited from that war. He extended his presidential term for another year in order to hold both presidential and parliamentary elections in 2009 in PA at the same time.

Israel could weaken “Hamas” positions at some extent: there were many tunnels, which were used for weapon delivery from Egypt to Gaza, destroyed. Israel gained some tactical advantages over “Hamas”, and it is much more likely that cease-fire will last long as it happened with “Hezbollah”. Israel had only 13 casualties and three of them were civilians.

But one point is clear: even if “Hamas” eliminated form the political field, there would have been no positive changes connected with Israel in Palestinian public conscience in the near future until there are some profound measures taken in order to arrange Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And this implies that Israel cannot destroy “terrorism infrastructures”, which may be reproduced as a counter to occupation. Thus Israel cannot maintain stable security for itself because Israelis and Palestinians will go on living side by side. That is why the statements by Israel and Western countries that they can reach peace only if “Hamas” lose the source of his arming (and “Hamas” has already announced that it will continue arming) seem to be rather disputable.

The next stage of escalation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, most probably will lead to rooting of radical attitude towards Israel in the public conscience in Gaza. And there is no need for any special propaganda for that. Gaza is like a prison under the open sky and in its public conscience anti-Israeli attitude is rooted once and for all. And any kind of military (including shakhid) actions against Israel and its citizens are regarded as means to coercion on Israel and international community.

In this case it is possible that Israel will change its tough stance and sooner or later will be obliged to sit down at the negotiating table with “Hamas” and end the blockade of Gaza.

Anyway, Palestine issue will not get a basic solution which implies the creation of independent Palestine state (which is rather complicate and longstanding process); the fragile cease-fire cannot bring to the establishment of real and stable peace.

And war in Gaza once more approved of the fact that in 21st century it is not easy to deal with the problems in a heavy-handed way.

1In accordance with the foregoing resolution Jerusalem, Bethlehem and adjoining territories were chosen as international zones and were not under the jurisdiction of either Jewish or Arab authorities.

2During Arab-Israeli war in 1948 (from Arab countries Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq took part in that war) Palestine suffered heaviest casualties as Israel occupied 74% of Palestine territory. Transjordan occupied and subdued Eastern Palestine and the other part of Jerusalem (Old Town), and Gaza strip (378sq.km) passed into the hands of Egypt.

3During Arab-Israeli war in 1967 Israel occupied Gaza strip, Eastern Jerusalem, Bethlehem, all Palestinian territories, which after the war in 1948 had been joined to Transjordan and were known as the West Bank. Israel took under its control all the territories which were given to Arabs to create their own state.

4On the basis of Oslo Accord-1 signed in 1993, in 1994 Palestine Authority was created on the West Bank of the Jordan River and in Gaza strip. In 2005 Israel left Gaza strip unilaterally and placed it under control of Palestinians but it retained airspace and sea space control as well as control over boarder crossings (with the exception of Rafah). But after the victory of “Hamas” on parliamentary elections in 2006 Israel applied economic sanctions against Palestine Authority, and in June 2007 it blockaded Gaza under the pretext of securing Israel from the missile fire of “Hamas”.

5In January 2006 “Hamas” won parliamentary elections and formed coalition, which was headed by Ismail Haniya. At the beginning of 2007 internal discrepancies in Palestine developed into confrontation between “Hamas” and “Fatah”. According to “Mecca Accord” signed in 2007 both parties came to an agreement to stop that confrontation and begin collaborating. But as a result of further developments and confrontation with Israel “Hamas” forced “Fatah”, which is ruling PA now, out of Gaza. In response to this the president of PA Mahmud Abbas dissolved “Hamas” government. The attempts to reconcile those parties with the mediation of different Arab forces were unavailing.


Return
Another materials of author