specpol - study guide2

8/7/2019 Specpol - Study Guide2

1/29General Assembly 1

SPECIAL POLITICAL ANDDECOLONIZATION

COMMITTEE

ISRAELI PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Table of Contents

Introduction 3 History of the Committee 3 Statement of the Problem 3-5 History of the Problem 5-12 Current Situation 12-23 Relevant UN Actions 23-25 Questions a Resolution must Answer 25-27 Bloc Positions 27

GENERAL ASSEMBLY


2/29

General Assembly 2

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the Special, Political, and Decolonization Committee of LincolnModel United Nations! My name is Ernesto Nez Chacn and I am a seniorstudent at Lincoln School. Currently I am finishing the InternationalBaccalaureate program and planning to study law and communication at the UCRin a near future. I was born in Costa Rica and have lived my entire life inAlajuela, the best place ever. However, about six months ago I moved to SanAntonio de Beln, a fine place. As for my tastes and preferences, I like literature,theatre, videogames, a little of every type of music, and of course to debate, orfight, which according to my friends is what I do instead.

My first participation in a Model United Nations was back in 2007 and since thenI have been to more or less every single conference of this sort in Costa Rica. Ialso participated in Harvard Model United Nations in 2008 which cemented mypassion for diplomacy and my desire to do something positive for the globalcommunity we live in. This conference marks my eight participation in a ModelUnited Nations and I am beyond honored to be the director of a committee withsuch a remarkable trajectory and such a sensitive topic to tackle: the IsraeliPalestinian conflict.

In order to prepare yourself for this debate I strongly encourage you to begin by

reading this study guide from start to end and then proceed with the research forthe specific position of your assigned country. Furthermore, I ask you to becomeknowledgeable in current events pertinent to the topic due to the fact that theIsraeli Palestinian Conflict is constantly taking new directions and it is essentialfor this debate that you know on which areas to focus your resolution. Rememberthat the better prepared you are, the more enjoyable it will be.

I look forward to meeting all of you in April. DO NOT hesitate to send me anemail if you need any help. This will be a heated debate and I am more thanwilling to assist you in any reachable way to assure the level of preparation thistopic requires. You can contact me via email:[email protected].

Lastly, I would like to clarify this study guide is not my work. Harvard Universityis responsible for it.

TAKE CARE AND BE READY!

Sincerely,

Ernesto Nez Chacn

Director of the Special, Political and Decolonization Committee

Lincoln Model United Nations 2010

Gloriana Sojo

Co-Secretary General

Daniela Viteri

Co-Secretary General

Jeanie Ayub

Advisor

Jane Hutchcruft

Advisor
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/29

General Assembly 3

INTRODUCTIONThe issues that the Special, Political, and

Decolonization committee discusses arealways of considerable global importance.

This year, the committee will be discussingtopics that have affected the lives ofthousands. These topics have a significant

impact on international security today, and aswitnessed throughout history, not dealing withthe issues effectively will not only result in

their continuation, but also in theirexacerbation.

In the world today, instability in onespecific region cannot be considered anisolated threat, as it can swiftly expand and

imperil any other region in the world. Thenature of these issues can easily change, andthus new dialogue and debate must be heldregularly to address these pressing matters.

Certain resolutions, treaties, and laws may beoutdated and must be modified in order toagree with current affairs. It is also very

important that the committee take intoconsideration the root and history of eachproblem, as experience gained in the past willserve as valuable lessons for future solution.

HISTORY OFTHE

COMMITTEEWhen the United Nations was founded in

1945, it involved a system of committees that

were established to deal with the diverse issuesbefore the General Assembly. The firstcommittee of the General Assembly was theDisarmament and International Securitycommittee (DISEC), and it was established todeal with disarmament and relatedinternational security questions. The Special,Political, and Decolonization committee

(SPECPOL), which is the fourth committee inthe General Assembly, deals with a wide

variety of issues including matters ofdecolonization that are not covered by

DISEC but were quite prevalent at the time ofits founding. Therefore, the Fourth Committeewas instituted as an informal committee to

discuss and resolve problems concerningeither decolonization or self-determination.However, the committee became

permanent in 1978, and despite the dwindlingnumber of colonies in the world today, theissues discussed by SPECPOL are verysignificant due to the fact that the sovereigntyof various nations is still somewhatcontroversial in the present day. Throughout

history, SPECPOL has played a crucial role indealing with refugees and other humanitariancrises. Ideal solutions to such conflicts and

crises must recognize the sovereignty of aparticular state, in addition to its culturalbeliefs and ideological viewpoints.

In recent years, SPECPOL delegates have

discussed civil disputes in former Yugoslavia,

the rights of the Kurdish people in Iraq and

Turkey, the fate of the Palestinian refugees,

the peaceful use of outer space, the long term

effects of atomic radiation, and modern

colonialism, as in the Western Sahara, Cyprus,

or Afghanistan.

THE ISREALI

PALESTINIAN

CONFLICT

STATEMENT OFTHE PROBLEM

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is

perhaps one of the most sensitive global issuesto afflict the second half of the 20th century. Ittakes the form of an ongoing dispute betweenIsraelis and Palestinians, as well as other

PECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE


4/29

General Assembly 4

Arabs in the region. The current conflict stemsfrom larger issues and tensions that can be

easily traced back to the end of the 19thcentury, during the rule of the Ottoman andBritish empires and the time of the Zionist

pioneers. Beginning with the disintegration ofthe Ottoman Empire and ensuing politicalarguments about territorial rights, the conflicthas continued throughout the century. It hasgained global attention as a result of thestaggering level of violence involved, as brutalfighting has been carried out by armies, militiagroups, and terrorist cells on both sides. Theconfounding number of casualties has not been

limited to the militaries, as civilian populationson both sides have also been victim to theharsh, and seemingly endless, violence.

Above is a portrait of Balfour and a draft of thedeclaration. The document would have immenseramifications for the future of the Israeli-Palestiniansituation

After the Balfour Declaration of 1917,which expressed British support for thecreation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and the

transfer of political power from the OttomanEmpire to the British mandate, the conflict

began to develop. Violence was prompted byan increase in Jewish immigration to Palestineas well as Arab nationalism in the region. In

1948, the establishment of the state of Israelsparked the Arab-Israeli War, whichconcluded with the 1949 ArmisticeAgreements. These agreements, however, onlymarked the beginning of a series of wars andfailed attempts at negotiation. The 1967 warbetween Israel and the states of Egypt, Jordan,and Syria resulted in a rise in aggressionbetween the two sides as well as an increased

number of Palestinian refugees as Israel tookpossession of the West Bank, Gaza Strip,Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula, territories

that were once controlled by Jordan, Egypt andSyria. Many other wars and innumerablecasualties mark this regions bitter history,

including the recent Gaza blockade, andattempts at negotiating for peace have failedthus far.

There are a number of key issues thathinder peace between Israel and Palestine.These involve matters of security andeconomy, the topic of refugees, and the statusof Jerusalem and areas of the West Bank.Before agreeing on any form of military

withdrawal, both Palestine and Israel demandguaranteed security, as history only showsviolent tendencies from both sides. The majorityof Palestinians are stateless, and most of themlive in refugee camps in the region. They live offof aid from other countries and have very limitedaccess to water. Essentially, the right of thesestateless individuals to return toIsraeli/Palestinian lands is a main subject ofdebate. Meanwhile, the status of Jerusalem is

contended not only because of politics, but alsobecause of matters of faith.

There has been much internationalinvolvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The quartet of powers, which consists of theUnited Nations, European Union, United States,and Russia, proposed the Road Map for Peaceand attempted to mediate its implementation.The process, however, fell short due tocontinued fighting and retaliations from both



5/29

General Assembly 5

sides, as well as the continuation of negotiationsby the US outside of the quartet process.

Countries in the Middle East and NorthAfrica do not have a single, unified position onthe issue, with varying countries taking differentstances toward the PLO, Hamas, and Fatah. A

number of countries in the region are workingtoward better relations with Israel and moremoderate stances on the conflict, while othershave relatively fixed positions.

HISTORY OFTHE PROBLEM

The Conflict on the Frontier

When the issue of the conflict inIsrael/Palestine is brought to mind, it is crucialto note the regions geography. This holy

region, as so recognized by the threemonotheistic beliefs, was given the name ofPalestine in the second century CE. It was infact the Romans who named the region, whichstretched from the Mediterranean Sea coasts tothe Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and theDead Sea, and from the lower parts of MountHermon to the Desert of Negev region.132

Geographically today, this region lies in

six political jurisdictions. These regionsconsist of Israel in its entirety, the Israeli ruledsection of the Occupied Territories, the areasruled by the Palestinian Authority, the coastalregions along the southern border of Lebanon,the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, areas of Jordan,and parts of Syria.133

The November 1947 UN Resolution for

Partition

The United Nations decided in November1947 to pass a resolution to divide the regionof Palestine into two states, one for the Jewsand one for the Arabs. This resolution did notprovide for what the Jewish leaders saw as the

Promised Land because Judaea, Samaria, theWest Bank, and Jerusalem as a whole were notincluded, but the leaders at the time acquiesced

to the borders of the resolution. The Arabs,however, did not want to comply with the

borders dictated by the proposal, and insteadsought the arbitration of force.134

Following through with the resolution andignoring many protests from the Arabs, theUnited Nations established the official

partition for September 1948. On May 14,1948, however, the British governmentdecided to withdraw from Palestine and leavethe Jews and Arabs to resolve their owndispute over the Holy Land. The British didnot want to continue losing assets due to thebehavior of the three Jewish terrorist groupsthat were dominating the region at that timeHaganah, Irgun, and Lef. The Jewish settlers

took advantage of the absence of the Britishgovernment to establish the state of Israel asan independent country, without negotiating or

conducting dialogue with the Palestinians.With the establishment of their country, theJewish settlers continued acting unilaterally

and expanded their borders past the originalones outlined in the resolution passed by theUN.135

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49With the formation of the country of Israel,

the Israeli army soon took form. The armyconsisted of volunteers from the Haganah andIrgun terrorist groups, as well as the expert

fighters from the Jewish Brigade that hadpreviously volunteered to help the British inWorld War II. As the Israeli army mobilizedfor an invasion of Palestine, it was the Arabforces, an amalgamation of neighboringcountries such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,and Transjordan, that tried to stop the Israeliarmy, and to force their forces back into theMediterranean Sea. The Israeli army continuedtheir invasion with the original intent of takingcontrol of Palestine, and as the year of 1948came to an end, the army stood at 100,000. Itwas well-armed and possessed military controlover Palestine.136

The UN intervened and attempted toinstitute a peace agreement on January 12,

1949. These peace talks took place in Rhodes,and Israel signed a treaty with all but one ofthe Arab nations that had risen up against their

forces. Iraq was the only one of the five



6/29

General Assembly 6

countries that refused to attend armistice talkswith Israel, and because of this, the war

against Israel raged on for the other Arabneighbors as well. At that time, Israel hadtaken over four-fifths of the region, with

establishments controlling the Galilean andJudaean regions (northern and southern areasof the hill country), some of the Mediterraneancoast south of Lebanon (not including theGaza Strip), and west Jerusalem. Within its

borders, Israel had hegemony over the Negev

desert, from the southern part of the Dead Seawestward to the Sinai Peninsula and southwardto the Gulf of Aqaba.137 Thus, at this point

in the war, Jordan controlled Samaria, northernJudaea (later known as the West Bank), nearlyall of the Jordan Valley, and the core of the

Holy Landthe Old City of Jerusalem. TheGaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula were ruledby Egypt, and the Golan Heights belonged to

Syria.138

The attempt by the UN to push armistice

talks was completely unsuccessful, as it wasdisregarded by the Arabs immediately after atreaty was signed. During the seven-yearperiod from 1949 to 1956, it was recorded that

approximately 1,300 Israelis were killedduring the raids carried out by the Arabs, and

violence increased as Israeli counterattacksturned brutal. A change in political leadershipalso augmented the strife. The sole moderate

Arab leader, King Abdullah of Jordan, wasassassinated by Arab activists on July 20,1951. In Egypt, meanwhile, the populistdictatorship of Gamul Abdul Nasser rose topower as a result of the military junta puttingan end to the Egyptian monarchy on July 23,1952, paving the road for more hostility tocome between the Arab nations and Israel.139

The Suez Canal War (1956)

Since the war began in 1948, Egypt hadcontinued to deny Israel access through the

Suez Canal. Even after the United NationsSecurity Council demanded a change, Egyptdid not shift its position. With a new

development in February 1953, when tiesbetween Israel and Stalin broke off and Stalindeveloped a pro-Arab Middle Eastern

policy,140 the Egyptian-Czech arms dealtook form and was completed in September of1955. The Arab forces received huge suppliesof weapons from the Soviet bloc. In addition,the Egyptian dictator, Gamul Abdul Nasser,

constructed a plan to destroy Israel. By cuttingoff access to the Straits of Tiran in 1956,Nasser denied Israeli ships access to the Gulfof Aqaba. This cut off Israels only passage to

the Red Seaand by extension, its only meansof receiving petroleum. With the military pactbetween Saudi Arabia and Yemen in April, his

victory in seizing the Suez Canal from theBritish in July, and his combined militarycommand with Jordan and Syria in October of

that year, Nasser had set his plan in motion.

However, in a defensive attack coordinated bythe Israelis with the backing of France andGreat Britain on October 29, Israel sentparatroops to Sinai in an attempt to conquerthe Mitla Pass. During the short war thatensued, troops sent by France and GreatBritain aided the Israelis, and by the end of thewar, Israel had conquered the entirety of Sinai,

seized Gaza, and once again unblocked its ownpassage to the Red Sea.141



7/29

General Assembly 7

While victory had glazed over the eyes ofthe Israelis, the United States decided to

intervene in an attempt to reflect pro-Arabsympathies and show that there could only be

one Western superpower present in the Middle

East during the Cold War by halting theinvasion.142 After negotiations and threatsbrought on by the United States, Israelconceded to withdrawing from the newlyinvaded regions of the Sinai Peninsula andGaza, on the condition that Egypt woulddemilitarize for good, and that a protectiveforce would be put in place in those regions bythe United Nations Peacekeeping Force. At the

conclusion of these negotiations, the UnitedStates was the only superpower remaining inthe Holy Land, as France and Great Britain

withdrew their forces from the Canal Zoneregion.143

The Six-Day War of 1967

Between the years of 1949 and 1967, itseemed as though the land disputes had ended

with the armistice established in 1949.144However, this armistice only remained interms of a break from a physical war, becausethe Arab nations had yet to officially recognizethe state of Israel. The hostility that remained

between Israel and some of the moreaggressive countries in the Middle East, likeSyria and Egypt, manifested itself indeclarations supporting guerilla attacks against

Israel. Egypt also established blockades toprevent Israel from accessing the Suez Canal,sent troops into the Sinai, and even deemed the

presence of the United Nations PeacekeepingForce unnecessary, insisting on theirimmediate removal. Syria also acted

aggressively by pouring artillery shells on the

Israel towns in Galilee from the GolanHeights.145

While aggressive nations like Egypt andSyria were open about their hostility towardIsrael, it was not until June of 1967 thatanother major attack was put into motion, withthe insistence of the Palestinian extremists.Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan sent their

armies for yet another attack on Israel.However, before their forces could be put intoaction, Israel launched several successful

counterattacks that left the Arab armiesfleeing. In less than 6 days, the Sinai region,

all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and theentirety of the Jordanian region to the west ofthe Jordan River were under Israeli control.

Once again, the United Nations SecurityCouncil intervened and proposed a truce. Thistime, Israel quickly occupied the new territoryit had gained and sent the Palestinians fleeingto neighboring countries in thousands. Thoseremaining in the regionwhich consisted ofabout a million individualswere forced toprovide their services to the Israelimilitary.146

The Yom Kippur war (October 1973)In 1970, President Anwar Sadat came to

power in Egypt and expressed to the UN thathe was eager to reach a peace agreement withIsrael in exchange for the return of the Sinai

Peninsula, which was captured in 1967.147Sadats proposition was ignored by the US and

Israel, so with another strategy of attack,

Egypt and Syria initiated a strike on Israel. Itwas on October 6, 1973 that this surpriseattack began. Egypt targeted the Bar Lev line,located on the eastern side of the Suez Canal,with a series of air and artillery assaults, and

the Syrians targeted the Golan Heights with anintensive tank incursion. With thissimultaneous breach into Israel, hopes werehigh for the Arabs. With Israels air force

eliminated by the USSR-supplied ground-to-air missiles that Egypt had in its arsenal, Egyptsoon found its way past the Bar Lev line, and

Syria gained control of the southern portion ofthe Golan Heights.148 Egypt and Syriassurprise attacks resulted in early military

victories for the Arabs, and this provoked

American political intervention, followed byincreased military aid to Israel. Israels army

soon retaliated in the north to push Syrianforces back so that the 1967 treaty borderswere once again imposed. After accomplishingthis, the Israelis realized that if their attackshifted from a defensive one to one that wasmore aggressive, not only would they

exacerbate the conditions of the war, but theywould also incur outside intervention. As aresult, upon reaching the original 1967 treaty



8/29

General Assembly 8

lines, Israel halted its assault on Damascus andfocused its efforts on the Egyptian face of the

war. Two weeks into the war, the Egyptianforces that had penetrated Israel wereinfiltrated, and Israel cut the Egyptian line of

attack back across the Suez Canal. At thistime, both the Egyptians and the Israelispossessed substantial supplies of militaryweapons and materials shipped from theirrespective allies, the USSR and the UnitedStates.149

Three weeks into the war, Egypt and Syriano longer held the advantage of surprise thatthey previously had. Soon, both countries

began to weaken under the pressure of thestrong Israeli forces. Intent on finding aresolution, US Secretary of State Kissinger

met USSR Chairman Brezhnev in Moscow,where a UN Security Council proposal forarmistice was agreed upon. Syria, however,

unlike Egypt and Israel, did not comply withthe resolution. Because of this disagreement,the war continued and Israeli forces widenedtheir control over the territories encirclingMount Hermon, in addition to surroundingSuez City. Syria was left with limited options.After the Security Council passed anotherresolution several days later, Syria was forcedto comply. However, by late 1975 efforts for

peace had lost their potential for success, andthere seemed to be no practical hope for acomplete Arab-Israeli peace settlement in thenear future.150

The Palestine Liberation Organization

The Palestine Liberation Organization(PLO) is a political organization that wasfounded in 1964 by the Arab League at the

Cairo Summit, and as its name suggests, it is

consecrated to the struggle toward theestablishment of an independent Palestinianstate. Although previously regarded as aterrorist organization, it was recognized by theUnited Nations in 1974 as the legitimaterepresentative of the Palestinian people, andhas held a permanent observer seat in theUnited States General Assembly since

November 2 of that year. In 1988, inaccordance with the Palestinian Declaration ofIndependence, their representation in the UN

was renamed Palestine. Palestines status in

the UN was further expanded to include

participation in General Assembly debates, butwithout the right to vote.151 Despite therecognition granted to the PLO by the UN, the

United States government still considered it aterrorist organization until the MadridConference in 1991, and the state of Israel didnot recognize it until the Oslo Accords weresigned in 1993.152

Yasser Arafat, who acted as the Chairmanof the PLO Executive Committee from 1969until his death in 2004, formally sanctioned atwo-state solution to the ongoing Israeli-

Palestinian conflict in 1988. The proposal byArafat was dependent on East Jerusalembecoming the capital of the future Palestinian

state, and on giving Palestinian refugees theright of return to land occupied by Israel.

The Camp David agreements in 1979 made history,with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli PrimeMinister Menachem Begin coming together to announcethe beginning of a peaceful coexistence.

Camp David I

After the end of the Yom Kippur War,Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made anoverture to the Israeli government for peace.With peace talks underway between Sadat andIsraeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, USPresident Jimmy Carter invited the two leadersto Camp David, a presidential retreat inMaryland. The discussions were focused ontwo main issues. First, they established a

framework for peace between Egypt andIsrael, which dealt with the settlement of theSinai Peninsula. Second, they worked to



9/29

General Assembly 9

develop an outline for possible resolutions tothe issue of Palestine, hoping to grant self-

government to Palestinians in parts of theoccupied territories without necessarilydeciding upon certain final status concerns.153

In 1979, the agreement between Egypt andIsrael was signed, bringing the first goal of thenegotiations to a successful conclusion.However, because the proposal regardingprovisional Palestinian autonomy was refusedby Palestinians and other Arab nations, thesecond part of the discussions were notsuccessful. Moreover, Israel continued itsconstruction of new settlements within the

disputed territories, making the Palestinianseven less likely to agree to the terms in theCamp David agreements.154

The First IntifadaThe First Intifada, which began in

December 1987, was a mass uprising

instigated by the Palestinian people inhabitingthe West Bank and Gaza, unassociated withthe PLO operating from Tunis at the time.Literally, intifada means shaking off in

Arabic, and its purpose was to undermine

Israeli rule in the occupied territories.155The Intifada attracted hundreds of

thousands of people, many with no previousresistance experience, including children,teenagers and women, and it involved many

forms of civil disobedience including massivedemonstrations, general strikes, refusal to pay

taxes, boycotts of Israeli products, politicalgraffiti, stone throwing, and the establishmentof underground schoolssince regular schools

were closed by the military as reprisals for the

uprising.156 The reason that the uprising wasso popular among the masses was that all ofthe organizations and institutions that hadgrown and suffered under Israeli occupationeventually became involved. Hence, there wasmass mobilization.157

Even though the PLO itself was notassociated with the uprising, all four main

factions of the PLOincluding Fatahwereinvolved in the coalition that led the resistance.Therefore, because of the large foundation

upon which the Intifada was based, theinternational attention that it attracted to

Palestinian suffering in the West Bank andGaza was unprecedented. This challenged theIsraeli presence in the occupied territories as

never before.158Despite the violent response of the Israelitroops to the uprising, the resistance continueduntil 1991. In four years, over 1,000Palestinians were killed, including 200 underthe age of sixteen. Eventually however, it wasdivisions within the Palestinians themselvesthat weakened the movement, as rivalriesdeveloped among the different factions.159

The Gulf War and the Negotiations in

Madrid and Washington

After the First Intifada, the PLO wasput in a very difficult, and in many respectsunfair, position. Even though the uprising had

not brought about an end to the occupation ofproclaimed Palestinian territories, ithighlighted the fact that the situation wasunstable and definitely mutable in the nearfuture. It also transferred the weight of thePalestinian political program from the PLO

leadership in Tunis to the occupiedterritories.160 The PLO was urged byactivists to implement a clear political program

to lead the Palestinian effort towardindependence. As a result, the PalestineNational Council assembled in Algeria inNovember 1988 to officially recognize thestate of Israel, assert the independence of aPalestinian state in the West Bank and theGaza Strip, and, most importantly, repudiateterrorism. However, the government of Israeldisregarded these gestures and did notacknowledge that the PLO was a legitimaterepresentative of the Palestinian people andnot a terrorist organization. The US did notshow any support for the PLO either, eventhough they accepted the changes in theirpolicies.161

As a result of this, in 1990, the PLO

under Yasser Arafatexpressed its forthrightsupport for Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq,as well as his invasion of Kuwait in the Gulf

War. The PLO did not take this stance because



10/29

General Assembly 10

it was genuinely in favor of the Iraqi takeoverof Kuwait, but because it saw potential for a

change in the state of affairs of the MiddleEast in Saddam Husseins challenge to the US.This later proved to be a mistake, as it resulted

in the splitting of all previous ties Palestinehad with Kuwaitis, as well as the eviction ofnumerous Palestinians from Kuwait. ThePLOs stance in the Gulf War also affected itnegatively in other ways, as it lost popularityamong members of the internationalcommunity. Moreover, it lost many sources offinancial assistance, as both Saudi Arabia andKuwait stopped providing the PLO financial

support after the war.162Because of the weak state of the PLO after

the Persian Gulf War and requests from the

Arab nations to facilitate a solution to theongoing Israeli-Palestinian problem, PresidentBushs administration was compelled to

pressure Israeli Prime Minister YitzhakShamir to open dialogue with the Palestiniansand other Arab nations at a conference held inMadrid, Spain, in October 1991. Shamir wasreluctant to negotiate with the Palestinians anddemanded that the PLO be excluded from theMadrid Conference. During the course of theconference, the US government formallyrecognized the PLO as the legitimate

representation of the Palestinian people;however, as predicted, little else wasaccomplished during these discussions. PrimeMinister Shamir acquiesced to Palestinianrepresentationalthough not from the PLOin ensuing negotiations held in Washington,DC; however, little progress was made due tohis intention to [drag out] the Washington

negotiations for ten years, by which time theannexation of the West Bank would be anaccomplished fact.163

In December 1992, upon Israels eviction

of over 400 Palestinian inhabitants of theoccupied territories, the continuation ofnegotiations seemed unlikely. The Palestinianswere forced to leave because they were

suspected of being involved with radicalIslamic activity. This brought into question thegenuineness of the Palestinian representatives

attending the Washington negotiations.

Eventually, the failure of the negotiations toachieve any progress, compounded with

Palestinian indignation about the evictions, ledto growing support for an Islamic resistancemovement known as Hamas. Previously, the

Israeli government had been in favor of thedevelopment of such Islamic movements,because of their tendency to divide thePalestinians. However, Hamas gained muchsupport throughout Gaza and the West Bank,and their goals even began to challenge themore moderate secular nationalism offered bythe PLO.164

The Oslo Accords and the Creation of the

Palestinian AuthorityIt was a number of various factors that

culminated in the Oslo Accords that took placein 1993. Firstly, negotiations in Washingtonhad been unsuccessful, but the new Israeli

government of Yitzhak Rabin was moreamiable toward the idea of peace betweenPalestine and Israel. Secondly, the PLO was

still in a position of weakness after the PersianGulf War, and the extreme Hamas faction wasquickly gaining support, threatening to replaceFatah in the PLO. Thus, fearing the rise of themore extreme Hamas faction, Israel shifted

from its position of refusing to negotiate withthe PLO and conducted secret discussions inOslo, Norway, directly with PLOrepresentatives.165

This was a sizeable step forward after thefruitless attempts at negotiations in Madrid andWashington. It resulted in the signing of the

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, also known as

the Oslo Accords, during a ceremony hosted

in Washington by President Bill Clinton on

September 13, 1993.166 On this day, IsraeliPrime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLOchairman Yasser Arafat came together toconduct an epic and widely publicizedhandshake, signaling the approaching end todecades of bitter fighting and animositybetween the Israeli and Palestinian people.167

Before the signing of the accords in

Washington, an exchange of letters had takenplace between Arafat and Rabin. OnSeptember 9, 1993, a letter concerning key



11/29

General Assembly 11

issues of Israel and the PLO was addressed toYitzhak Rabin from Yasser Arafat. The letter

consisted of a number of points, including thePLOs restated recognition of the right of the

State of Israel to exist in peace and

security,168 its acceptance of United NationsSecurity Council Resolutions 242 and 338, itsrepudiation of the use of terrorism and other

acts of violence,169 and its stated dedicationto the Middle East peace process. In response,Prime Minister Rabin wrote a letter addressedto Yasser Arafat claiming that Israel has

decided to recognize the PLO as therepresentative of the Palestinian people and

commence negotiations with the PLO withinthe Middle East peace process.170

The Oslo Accords themselves

accomplished several important things. First,there was mutual agreement about thetransfer of power and responsibilities of the

West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.This agreement took into account five differentspheres, including education and culture,health, social welfare, direct taxation, andtourism, so that Palestinians would be incontrol of their own affairs.171

Second, the responsibility for Palestinianrule was given to the Palestinian Authority(PA), an interim governmental organization

that was created during the Oslo Accords withthe mandate to govern specific parts of thedisputed territories under the name ofPalestine. These disputed areas included theGaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, regionsthat were claimed by Palestinians for a futureindependent state. The PA was created as partof a 5-year interim period, during whichnegotiations about permanent status issues

would take place. The goal was to continuenegotiations until Palestine was officiallyestablished as an independent state. Thesepermanent status issues, which included the

status of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements,security arrangements, and borders, wereexcluded from the Declaration of Principles,

and negotiations between the two sidesconcerning their settlement never tookplace.172

Moreover, elections for the PalestinianLegislative Council and presidency of the PA

were delayed until January 1996, at whichpoint Yasser Arafat assumed his role aspresident of the Palestinian people. Although

the PLO and the PA were not formally linked,after this election, the PLO and members ofthe Fatah faction dominated theadministration. Arafat was the Chairman of thePLO Executive Committee and the Presidentof the Palestinian Authority until his death in2004. After his death, Arafat was replaced byMahmoud Abbasalso known as AbuMazenas the leader of the Fatah political

party, the Chairman of the PLO, as well as thePresident of the PA. Mahmoud Abbas hasbeen actively pursuing many of the same goals

as Arafat.173

Fatah and HamasFatah, the major center-left Palestinian

political party that was co-founded by YasserArafat, was the leading faction of the PLOanationalist, multiparty umbrella confederacyuntil the January 2006 parliamentary elections.In these elections, the main opposition party,Hamas, won 76 out of 132 of the seats in thePalestinian parliament, placing them in the

majority.174 Fatah resigned all of its cabinetpositions in the chamber in order to express itsrefusal to be associated with Hamas,175because Hamas is viewed by a large portion ofthe international community, including the US,EU, Australia, and Japan, as a terroristorganization not to be negotiated with.176Hamas is essentially an Islamist political partythat functions as both a social and politicalorganization. It was created in 1987 at the startof the First Intifada. Ever since it came intoexistence, Hamas has carried out countlesssuicide bombings against the Israelis, inaddition to rocket attacks, the launching ofmissiles, and endless shootings. Hamass

recent rise in popularity among the Palestinian

people can be attributed to its dedication toPalestinian liberation and to the social reformsit has implemented in the Gaza Strip in order

to improve living conditions.177



12/29

General Assembly 12

Hamas gained control of much of Palestine after itssweeping victory in the 2006 elections. However, itstactics, which often rely on terror, have been criticized

for polarizing the divide.

Post Oslo and Camp David II

The negotiating process set up by theOslo Accords was intended to come to aconclusion by the year 1999. However, violenteruptions by Palestinian opponents such as

Hamas, Israels qualms about handing over its

control of the occupied territories, andreluctance on both sides to come to a

compromise on the difficult permanent status

issues caused several delays in the process. In

addition, between 1996 and 1999, upon theIsraeli Likud partys return to power, the

government of Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu was reluctant to continue Israelscommitment to the Oslo process.178

In 1999, the Labor party returned topower, and Prime Minister Ehud Barak was

dedicated to making strides toward peace. Hisfirst step was to make a proposal to theSyrians, hoping to reach a settlement by

offering to restore most of the area of theGolan Heights that was captured by Israel in1967. The Syrian government, unwilling to

accept anything but the entire region of theGolan Heights, refused this offer.179 PrimeMinister Barak then made an initiative tocontinue peace talks with the Palestinians.During the period when negotiations hadslowed, Israel had continued the constructionof settlements in occupied territories.

Hamas gained control of much ofPalestine after its sweeping victory in the 2006elections. However, its tactics, which often

rely on terror, have been criticized forpolarizing the divide.

The international community opposedthese settlements, because the projects were

viewed as marking out territory that Israelintended on keeping as part of a finalcompromise. When discussions resumed inmid-2000, Israel agreed to partially withdrawfrom the West Bank and Gaza.180 In thedialogue that took place at Camp David II withPresident Clinton, Israels offer of restoring

40% of the West Bank and 65% of the GazaStrip to the Palestinians was unacceptable for

Yasser Arafat as well as the rest of the Arabnations, especially because Israels position on

East Jerusalem and the refugee problem

remained unchanged.181

Current SituationThe Second Intifada

The unsuccessful discussions at CampDavid marked the official failure of the Osloprocess and sparked the Second Intifada inSeptember 2000. The uprising officially beganafter Likud leader Ariel Sharons visit to

Temple Mount, on September 28182. TempleMount is known to Muslims as the Noble

Sanctuary and is one of the most religiouslocations in the Old City of Jerusalem, awalled area within modern day Jerusalem that

includes several important religious sites suchas the Temple Mount and its Western Wall forJews, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher forChristians, and the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims. As consistent withMuslim belief, the Noble Sanctuary was the

location of Prophet Muhammads ascent toheaven during his night-time journey, and it istherefore regarded as the third holiest location

in Islam. According to Sharon, the reason forhis visit to Temple Mount was to affirm theright of Israelis to visit the holy site, since they

retained sovereignty over the Old City.However, as stated by Ofir Akounis, a Likudspokesperson, the reason was to show that



13/29

General Assembly 13

under a Likud government, [Temple Mount]would remain under Israeli sovereignty.183

This resulted in immediate, violentresponses from the Palestinian masses inJerusalem, with protests and demonstrations

erupting all across the West Bank and GazaStrip, as well as in towns within Israel itself.The resistance was carried out in a very similarfashion to the first, with protesters throwingstones, Molotov cocktails, and missiles atIsraeli soldiers and buildings. However, thenumber of people involved was much higherthe second time around, and the battle muchbloodier. Israeli troops responded with

comparable violence, countering thePalestinians with rubber-coated steel bullets inaddition to live ammunition. Prime Minister

Ariel Sharon, who came to power in 2001,launched a systematic campaign againstPalestinian Authority targets, in particular the

police and the prisons.184The uprising continued for several years,

and was not considered over until late 2005.Throughout this time, both sides were witnessto acts of extreme violence and brutality, suchas lynching, suicide bombings, strict curfews,and the unannounced demolition of houses. In2001, Israel was compelled to resort to the useof warplanes instead of helicopter gunships to

carry out aerial attacks against Palestiniantargets in the territories, a measure that had notbeen taken since the war in 1967.185

In 2003, upon the arousal of suspicionsthat Yasser Arafat had provided funding to theal-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a violent offshootof Fatah that was deeply involved in terroristactivity during the Intifada and later the Warof Lebanon in 2006, the internationalcommunity demanded the implementation ofdemocratic reforms in the PalestinianAuthority. There was also pressure placed onArafat for the creation of a prime ministerposition, not associated with the position ofpresident. Therefore, on March 13, 2003, themoderate Mahmoud Abbas was selected to

become the prime minister of Palestinian.186This act showed that the Palestinian

Authority was willing to maintain a good

rapport with the international community.

After Abbas was selected as prime minister,the US government broached the Road Map

for Peacea plan devised by the Quartet ofPowers to resolve the Palestinian conflict. TheRoad Map called for an end to the construction

of settlements in the disputed territories, therenouncing of militant activity, and theeventual creation of a sovereign Palestinianstate. However, despite Abbas attempts to

suppress militant activity, organizations suchas al-Aqsa and Hezbollah continued theiractivism. The Palestinian leadership was eitherunable or unwilling to make significant effortsto stifle these organizations, for fear of igniting

a civil war.187In June 2003, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad

announced a temporary armistice, calling for a

stop to all attacks on Israelis for 45 days.Violence subsided significantly over thisperiod, but occasional attacks and suicide

bombings still continued. Israel claimed thatHezbollah and the Islamic Jihad wereconnected to Iran and Syria, and that thefunding they received from these nations wasexacerbating the situation.188

On February 2, 2004, Prime Minister ArielSharon revealed his Gaza Disengagement

Plan, a move that would result in the

voluntary removal, or the forced eviction, of

Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip. Many viewedthe implementation of the disengagement asthe point where the intifada began to die down.Even though fighting and killing continued, itbecame less regular and less violent.189

Following the natural death of YasserArafat in November 11, 2004, MahmoudAbbas was elected to assume the presidency ofthe PA in January 2005. He openly expressedhis support for diplomatic negotiations withIsrael and called for an end to the recentviolence. However, Abbas did not encourageforced disarmament of the militant factions, soviolence continued in the Gaza Strip.190 Thisled Ariel Sharon to immobilize all peacefulcontacts with the PA, announcing that Abbas

must make a real effort to stop the terror. In an attempt to suppress the continued

launching of Qassam rockets from the northern

Gaza Strip, Abbas deployed Palestinian police



14/29

General Assembly 14

to the region, which resulted in the significantreduction of attacks on Israel. Then, in

February 8 of that year, Sharon and Abbas191settled on a bilateral truce between Israeland the PA at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of

2005. Jordan and Egypt were also present atthe summit. Despite this, however, militantorganizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihadrefused to commit to a binding truce untilIsrael had made steps to follow the road mapfor peace.192

In spite of the truce, occasional attacks byHamas continued. In these cases, Hamas firedseveral Qassam rockets and mortar shells to

attack Israeli settlements. The attacks wereclaimed to be in retaliation for Palestiniandeaths at the hands of the Israelis, but Abbas

repudiated the use of such violent actions,especially after the established truce.Nonetheless, these attacks resulted in a wave

of criticism for Sharons disengagement plan,

which already had numerous Israeli opponents,and Sharon lost a lot of popularity among theJewish settlers.193

Sharons Disengagement Plan

The Israeli Disengagement plan, whichwas also known as the Gaza Expulsion plan,

was proposed by Ariel Sharon, Israeli PrimeMinister during the Second Intifada. Itoutlined the eviction of all Israeli settlers fromthe 21 settlements that existed in Gaza Strip

and from four of the settlements in thenorthern West Bank region. The Israeligovernment approved the plan on June 6,

2004.194When the plan was implemented, Israeli

citizens that would be affected by it were

offered compensation packages if they agreed

to voluntarily vacate their settlements. InSeptember 2004, Israeli senior Cabinetministers sanctioned early cash payments tosettlers who met an August 2005 deadline ofleaving their homes.195 This was the firstrealistic step in the direction of the Gazapullout. The government hoped that thesecompensation packages would persuade the

majority of the 8,000 citizens living in theGaza Strip to leave their settlementsvoluntarily, and thereby render the forceful

eviction of the remaining settlers an easier taskfor Israeli troops. Families received payments

of up to $400,000, depending on house andfamily size, in compensation for leaving.196

The presence of Israeli settlers in contested areas

has made seeking any resolution difficult, as both sides

now voice legitimate concerns.The forceful eviction of the remaining

settlers took place over the course of a fewdays after the August 15, 2005 deadline. Theoverall process, which included eviction,demolition of the buildings, and pullout of the

50,000 troops and police forces responsible forthe evacuation, was completed by September12. On that date, the Gaza Strip was turned

over to the Palestinians, and ten days later, the

four settlements in the northern West Bankwere also evacuated and demolished.197

The Jewish settlements in the West Bankand Gaza Strip have always been viewed as anobstacle for peace between Israelis andPalestinians, and the international communityconsiders the evacuation of settlers from thisregion a key condition for an end to the

conflict. However, Prime Minister Sharonsplan was not necessarily geared toward peace,as it was a unilateral action most likely

intended for another purpose. In a number ofinterviews, Sharon stated that as a result of theGaza pullout, Israel can now justify holding on

to larger blocks of the West Bank, where thereare over 120 Jewish settlements.198

The presence of Israeli settlers in contestedareas has made seeking any resolutiondifficult, as both sides now voice legitimateconcerns.



15/29

General Assembly 15

Despite the Prime Ministers intentions,

the Disengagement Plan was a very

controversial move within Israeli politics.Sharon, whose previous policy involved theannexation and settlement of the Palestinian

lands that Israel had captured in the 1967 Mid-East War, was criticized for ostensibly havingchanged his position in favor of thePalestinians. The controversial plan resulted inthe splitting of his Likud Political Party,leading to his alienation from traditionalsupporters, including Jewish settlers and rightwing Israelis. At the same time, Palestinianswere also opposed to the plan, because they

saw it as a means for Israel to avoid followingthe road map supported by the internationalcommunity.199

Upon the implementation of thedisengagement plan, Sharon stated that Israelwould follow through with its withdrawal from

the Gaza Strip and the four settlements in theWest Bank; however, he proclaimed that afterthe plan was carried out, there may very well

be a long period when nothing else

happens200 in terms of movements towardpeace between Israelis and Palestinians. Healso added, in an interview in September 2004,that Israel did not intend to immediatelyfollow the road map for peace, supported by

the US, Russia, EU, and UN, and that therewas a high likelihood that Israelis wouldremain in large portions of the West Bank longafter the Gaza withdrawal. This statementangered many Palestinians, who feared that theIsraelis were not making steps toward peacenegotiations as outlined in the road map.201The road map, which was first delineated byU.S. President George W. Bush on June 24,2002, proposes the existence of anindependent Palestinian state alongside Israel.It was approved by both sides in the year 2003.The road map calls for effective peacenegotiations and does not explicitly sketch outthe borders of the two states, leaving that up tonegotiations. Unfortunately, even though the

plan aimed for the establishment of anindependent Palestine by 2005, it was neverseriously initiated due to lack of support for

the plan on both sides. Nonetheless, it is, to

this day, considered as the basis for ongoingnegotiations.202

Gaza Blockade, Hamas Victory, and

Palestinian De Facto Government

During the course of the Second Intifada,

Israel imposed a military blockade on the GazaStrip, and the Gaza International Airport was

closed. Furthermore, all entry and exit pointsin the territories were sealed for securityreasons. The blockade had an enormous effect

on the regions economy, resulting in thedevastation of land and vegetation. It wasestimated that losses in agriculturalproductivity were equal to several milliondollars. According to the UN Conference onTrade and Development (UNCTAD), the

Palestinian economy was collapsing due to de-development on the order of a billion dollars.The devastating economic and humanitarian

situation attracted much attention from theinternational community.203

After the Israeli disengagement of Gaza,

US Secretary General Condoleezza Ricefacilitated an agreement between the PLO andIsrael to improve the state of the Palestinianeconomy and to provide the people of Gazawith increased freedom of movement. Certain

crossings were opened to people withPalestinian IDs and goods were permitted toenter and exit the area. However, because ofcontinued restrictions, the Gaza Strip was

limited to only 10% of its minimal daily exporttarget, and basic food commodities wereextremely scarce.204

Hamas recent rise in popularity among the

Palestinian people can be attributed to thesocial reforms they put into place. They have

funded numerous schools, hospitals, clinics,

mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs, and daycare centers, providing continued food andhealth services to the suffering people in Gaza.In fact, approximately 85 percent of Hamasrevenues are used to fund health, socialwelfare, religious, cultural, and educationalservices.205 Even though they are seen as aterrorist organization, they are much more

organized than the Fatah faction. They arededicated to their cause of Palestinianliberation at whatever cost, and some, like



16/29

General Assembly 16

previous President Jimmy Carter, even claimthat they are more capable of ruling the

Palestinian people than the Fatah party.206When Hamas unexpectedly triumphed

against Fatah in the January 25, 2006 general

elections for the Palestinian LegislativeCouncil, violent fighting erupted between thetwo factions. After a series of battles in theGaza Strip in 2007, in which Fatah wasunsuccessful, President Mahmoud Abbasdeclared a suspension to the unity governmentand announced a state of emergency on June14.207 He dismissed newly elected PrimeMinister Ismail Haniya, senior political leader

of the Hamas party, by presidential decree, andSalam Fayyad was appointed in his place.Critics view Abbas appointment of Fayyad in

Haniyas place as illegal, because even though

the president retains the right to discharge asitting Prime Minister under Palestinian Basic

Law, the appointment of a replacement is notwithin his powers. Since Fayyad was neverapproved by the Palestinian LegislativeCouncil, Haniya is still believed to be thelegitimate Palestinian prime minister by manypeople.208

The political consequences of the conflictare complicated, due to the fact that theterritory legally under the rule of the

Palestinian Authority has de facto been brokenup into two entities: Hamas retains controlover the Gaza Strip, with Prime MinisterIsmail Haniya refusing to acknowledge thelegitimacy of his dismissal; and the PalestinianAuthority is in control of the West Bank, withSalam Fayyad acting as prime minister afterhis appointment in 2007 by PresidentMahmoud Abbas. Because of his actions,Abbas has been accused of corruption. Electedto serve only until January 2009, he hasunilaterally extended his presidency for anextra year because of the Palestinian state of

emergency, claiming that the Basic Law

allowed him to do so. However, Hamasdeclared that it refused to recognize this

extension, and many other critics also view itas illegal.209

Mahmoud Abbas has been leader of the PalestineLiberation Organization since 2005 and is a member ofthe Fatah party. He has come under heavy criticismrecently, having been accused of corruption andauthoritarianism.

After Abbas announced the dissolution of

the unity government, influential internationalplayers including the US, EU, and Israelpublicly expressed their espousal of aPalestinian government without Hamas,directing their financial support to thePalestinian Authority in the West Bank.210They hoped to support Abbas West Bank

government and weaken Hamas rule in Gaza,

asserting that Hamas is a terrorist organizationthat should not be recognized as a legitimatepolitical group.211

Furthermore, to compound the detrimentaleffects of lost financial support, Israel resumeda complete economic blockade of the GazaStrip, rendering the living conditions in theregion worse than ever. The Egyptiangovernment supported the blockade, becausethey were worried that Hamas militancy couldpotentially create trouble in Egypt. Theyhoped that the blockade would weaken Hamas

and therefore decrease its militant activity. Inresponse, Hamas instigated another wave of

rocket attacks on Israel, causing the conflict toescalate. Further sanctions were implemented,and the blockade was tightened.212

The GazaWar

In an attempt to ease restrictionsimposed by the blockade and decrease the

suffering of the population in Gaza, Israel andHamas agreed to a ceasefire and the partiallifting of the sanctions in June 2008. However,Palestinian hopes that living conditions in



17/29

General Assembly 17

Gaza would improve were soon replaced bydisappointment, and slowly, frustration. Israel

lifted certain restrictions, as more clothing,staple foods, and fuel for electricity and powerwere let into the region.213 However, with a

sewage system that has long neededreplacements and repairs, and with Israelprohibiting the import of necessary machinery,the quality of life in Gaza has barelyimproved. Most of Gazas sewage cannot be

treated properly, so tons of raw waste flowstraight into the sea, affecting the port, thefishermen, the fish, and people swimming inthe sea.214 The sewage system in Gaza isamong several things affecting inhabitants

quality of life that needs urgent attention. It

took months and months of negotiations to get

Israel to allow some spare parts through theborders, says Maher al-Najjar, an engineer atthe Gaza Emergency Water Project.215

Additionally, with the economy in such a poorstate, vast numbers of Gazans are out of work.Over 1.5 million people, a significant portionof the total population, are dependent on foodaid that barely makes it through theblockade.216

Due to rising frustration in Gaza andHamas occasional incidents of violence and

rocket fire against the Israelis, there were a

series of violent outbreaks from both sides,each in retaliation of the previous.217 Asstated by the Intelligence and TerrorismInformation Center, on December 18, 2008, amilitary wing of Hamas fired a wave ofrockets and mortar shells into Israel fromnorthern Gaza in continued reprisal. Theceasefire that had been fragile from the startwas obviously over, and the Israelis respondedwith a full military attack on Gaza in lateDecember.218

Israeli Offensive

Israel had been planning for potentialmilitary action six months in advance bygathering information about possible targets.Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barakannounced that the attack was the result of

Israel losing patience over the insistent rocketattacks.219 The Israeli Defense Force (IDF)wished to take Hamas by surprise, in order to

prevent the militants from preparing for thewar by changing headquarters and moving the

location of weapons and equipment.220

Air Strikes

On December 27, 2008, the Israeli Air

Force (IAF) conducted an assault on 100Hamas targets that had previously been

marked as sites of potential militant activity.The attack consisted of 88 aircrafts, and it wascarried out within a period of 3.5 minutes. The

IAF announced that the attack had beenconducted with a 95 percent success rate,followed by a second assault by 60 jets andhelicopters on another 60 targets, whichincluded Hamas headquarters, police stations,and government offices.221 According to

Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni, Israel didnot plan on hesitating before attacking anytarget that was associated with the

illegitimate, terrorist government of

Hamas.222After the first series of assaults on the first

day, the Palestinian death toll was up to atleast 230 people, with an additional 700injured. Civilians and children were alsoincluded in the casualties.223 The fact that theattacks were initiated around the time that

children were leaving school has evoked thecriticism of many human rights groups.224The attack, which was code-named OperationCast Lead, has become known to the

Palestinians as the Massacre of BlackSaturday.225

The IAF declared that 80 percent of the

bombs they used were precision weapons, andthat 99 percent of the air assaults successfullyhit their targets.226 A report by the Center for

Strategic and International Studies confirmed

that the IAF had carried out the air strikesusing the smallest precision-guided weaponsand had deployed bombs using GPS as oftenas possible, in order to minimize collateraldamage.227

The IDF further attempted to reducecivilian casualties by warning Palestiniansthrough the distribution of leaflets and phone

messages. Palestinian families that were livingin high-risk areas, such as those living inbuildings that were associated with Hamas



18/29

General Assembly 18

militant activity, and even family members ofHamas personnel were warned and encouraged

to evacuate before attacks took place.228 Innumerous instances, sound bombs were set offin the neighborhoods 10 or 15 minutes before

an air strike in order to give the residentsenough time to evacuate the buildings.229 Tomaintain the element of surprise, some attackshappened sooner than the warnings suggestedand some never even occurred.230

Despite all these efforts to limit civiliancasualties, many of the prominent Hamasleaders that were targeted were killed togetherwith their families at home.231 The air strikes

continued until January 17, but on January 3,the Israelis also initiated a ground operation.The goal of the ground invasion was to secure

areas within the Gaza strip from whichmilitants continued to launch rockets evenafter the Israeli air strikes.232 They targeted

any buildings that they suspected of beingassociated with Hamas, including mosques,residential buildings, weapons depots, androcket launch sites. As Israelis invadedsignificant portions of the Strip with tanks andtroops, thousands of Palestinians fled theirneighborhoods in the midst of gunfire, asHamas members and even civilians engaged ingun battles with the Israeli troops.233 On

January 6, when Israeli mortar shells cameclose to hitting the Al-Fakhura school, therewas a public outcry and an expression ofcondemnation from UN Secretary General BanKi Moon and many international aid agencies,resulting in a strong impetus for theestablishment of a ceasefire.234 Moreover, apotentially accidental Israeli shelling of theUnited Nations Relief and Works Agencyheadquarters, which resulted in three injuriesand the destruction of tons of food and fuelthat was intended for 750,000 Palestinianrefugees, led to an apology from PrimeMinister Ehud Olmert.235

Israeli air strikes have been criticized by human rightsorganizations and many members of the internationalcommunity. Israel maintains that such strikes aredirected at combatants and necessary for its security.

At the start of the war, Hamas haddeveloped Qassam rockets with increasedrange, putting Israelis within a 40 kilometer

radiusor one-eighth of the Israeli population in danger of attacks. By mid-January,paramilitary groupssuch as the QassamBrigades and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, themilitary wing of Fatahhad launched 565rockets and 200 mortar shells into southernIsrael from Gaza.236 Fatah officials claimedthat the attacks conflicted with the officialposition of Fatah leader and PA President

Mahmoud Abbas, who had requested bothsides to put an end to the violence.237

Unilateral CeasefiresOn January 17, Israeli Prime Minister

Ehud Olmert announced that the military aimsof the operation had been met and declared aunilateral ceasefire without any negotiations

with Hamas.238 The Israeli plan was to putthe cease-fire into effect and wait to seewhether Hamas would stop firing rockets intoIsrael before withdrawing their forces. Thetheory was that if Hamas continued firingrockets after the Israeli cease-fire, the DefenseForce could resume their invasion. Afterhaving at least attempted a truce agreement,they would be more likely to win the support

of the international community.239Hamas responded by saying that they

considered the presence of Israeli troops in

Gaza an act of war and vowed to fight

on.240 The next day, Hamas, Islamic Jihad,and other groups announced that they would



19/29

General Assembly 19

give Israeli troops one week to withdraw fromIsrael, during which time they would stop

firing rockets.241 The Israeli forces finishedwithdrawing their troops on January 21.242

After the cease-fires, Hamas put a stop to

the firing of rockets and channeled its effortstoward gaining more support from bothPalestinians and the international communitythrough cultural initiatives and public

relations.243 A Hamas official declared thatthe fighters needed a break and the peopleneeded a break.244 However, Hamas hasreceived much criticism from radical Islamicorganizations for having seemingly abandoned

its original goals and its dedication to theliberation of Palestinians and the destruction ofIsrael.245

Casualties and EffectsThere are contradictory views about the

number of civilian casualties that the GazaWar caused, as Israeli officials claim thatmany more of their targets were associated

with Hamas than the Palestinians do, andHamas claims to have suffered fewer lossesthan the Israelis claim they did. ThePalestinian Ministry of Health, a Gazagovernmental office (PMoH), stated that there

had been 1,324 Gazan fatalities, most of whichwere civilians.246 This number included 437children under sixteen, 110 women, 123elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists.

In addition, there were 1,890 woundedchildren. However, Hamas claimed that themilitant group itself only suffered 48 fatalities,

compared to the 80 Israeli soldiers that theyclaim to have killed.247

An IDF report in March 2009

announced that the Palestinian death toll was

about 1,166, including 295 civilians, 89 ofwhom were under sixteen years old, and 49 ofwhom were women. They claimed that at least709 of the deaths were affiliated with amilitant organization.248 They stated thatthroughout the course of the conflict, 13Israelis were killed249three of whom wereciviliansand 336 were wounded250,

including 182 civilians.251The war had severe economic effects on

Gaza. The United Nations Development

Program proclaimed that the attacks on Gazaaffected the livelihoods and assets of tens of

thousands of Gaza civilians.252 Reportsindicate that Gaza experienced a loss ofapproximately $2 billion in assets, and that the

war resulted in the destruction of 4,000homes,253 up to 700 factories, 24 mosques, 31security compounds, and 10 water and sewagelines.254 About 51,000 Gazans were leftwithout a home, and currently, 80 percent ofthe population is incapable of supportingthemselves and must rely on humanitarianaid.255 Because of the conflict in Gaza, manymembers of the international community, such

as the EU, US, the Organization of the IslamicConference, and more than 50 other countries,have contributed aid to Gaza. The US alone

donated more than $20 million.256 The inflowof required food and supplies is still somewhatrestricted, however Israel, a number of

Western countries, and a few Arab countriesrequested that international aid groups controlthe flow of aid and donations from around theworld, to ensure that Hamas would not receivecredit for the recovery of Gaza in the eyes ofthe Palestinian people. This was designed toprevent suffering Gazans from turning toHamas as their advocates and saviors.258

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama

became President of the United States ofAmerica and sent George Mitchell, his envoyto the Middle East, to visit Israel, the WestBank, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and SaudiArabia to encourage the continuation of peacenegotiations. Although Mitchell conducted thefirst of his meetings as early as January 27,2009 in Cairo, he did not plan on talking toHamas, limiting his communication to only themore moderate Palestinian Authority.259Hamas officials were disappointed withMitchells decision to not initiate dialogue

with them.260

Outstanding Disputes

The problem with the agreements thatresulted during the Oslo Accords was that theyinstituted a negotiating process without

stipulating an outcome. This was due to thedisagreements that still endured proposimportant topics such as the fate of Jerusalem,



20/29

General Assembly 20

the matter of refugees, border disputes,security concerns, resource distribution, and

international status.261Jerusalem:Even though Prime Minister Rabin was in

favor of peace negotiations, he emphasized

that Israels position on Jerusalem remainedunaffected. When the accords were signed, hestated that Jerusalem is the ancient and

eternal capital of the Jewish people. Anundivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty,with religious freedom for allremains a

fundamental Israeli position.262 At the sametime, the Palestinian people have alwaysclaimed east Jerusalem as the capital for their

future nation, and this matter continues to be aproblem today.

In the years 2000 and 2001, at the Camp

David and Taba Summits, the US made aproposition regarding the issue of Jerusalem.The proposal suggested a plan for Jerusalem

that would place the Arab regions of the cityunder Palestinian control, and the Jewish partsof the city under Israeli control. To account forthe archaeological work taking place under theTemple Mount, the US proposed joint controlbetween Israel and the future state of Palestine.At that time, both sides consented to theproposal, but in the end, the summits proved tobe unsuccessful.263

Israels biggest concerns regarding

Jerusalem under Palestinian rule aremaintenance and right of access. In the past,when Jerusalem belonged to Jordan, Jewswere not allowed to visit any of the Jewishholy places like the Western Wall, andimportant Jewish sites like the cemetery on theMount of Olives were damaged.264 On oneoccasion in the year 2000, Josephs Tomb was

vandalized, burned down, and turned into amosque by a Palestinian mob. Israel is alsoconcerned about the safety of its residents,who could potentially be put in danger ifcertain neighborhoods in the city of Jerusalemwere under Palestinian control.265

Palestinians also have serious concerns

about the safety of Christian and Muslim holyplaces that are under Israeli control. Therehave been a number of attacks on the Al-Aqsa

Mosque since 1967. On one particular

occasion in 1969, a fire destroyed the entiresouth wing of the mosque, and the discovery

and opening of the ancient tunnels under themosque in 1981 led to the weakening of thestructure.266Refugeesand the Right of Return:

The fate of Palestinian refugees that havebeen dispersed throughout neighboring Arabcountries like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, as wellas to areas within the West Bank and Gaza,has also been a contentious topic. Palestinians

proclaim the right of return of their people to

Israeli occupied landsto the property thatthey were forced to leave in the formerBritish Mandate of Palestine as a result of the

1948 Palestine War and the 1967 Six-DayWar. The Israeli government considers this animpossible demand, because the matter is

much more complicated. The Palestiniansclaim that the right of return applies not only

to the original refugees, but also to their

second and third generation descendants, whohave grown tremendously in number since theissue of refugees was first brought up.267There are currently 4.6 million Palestinianrefugees registered with the UN Relief andWork Agency, and they are living underterrible living conditions.268 Most families aredependent on humanitarian aid, and will starveto death without it. These refugees need help

as soon as possible, so the internationalcommunity should make sure to facilitate theestablishment of a final agreement between thetwo sides, in order to improve their standard ofliving.269

Border Disputes, Israeli Settlements in the

West Bank, and the West Bank Barrier: The

West Bank Barrier

The state of Israel began construction on

an Israeli West Bank barrier in 2002. It is apart-wall, part metal fence270 that is beingbuilt for the stated purpose of protecting Israelicitizens by hindering suicide bombers andother Palestinian terrorists trying to enterIsraeli lands. The barrier, which has been builtas high as three to eight meters in different

parts, consists of a network of fences with

vehicle-barrier trenches.271The Palestinian people and the rest of the

international community suspect that the



21/29

General Assembly 21

building of the structure is intended as a landclaim by the Israeli government and some

argue that the fence is designed to redraw

borders ahead of any future peacesettlement.272 The route that the barrier is

being constructed on has been a matter of greatcontroversy, because instead of being builtalong the Green Line, it curves to include thecontested Israeli settlements in the WestBank.273 The Green Line refers to theboundary separating Israel from the WestBank, or the 1949 Armistice lines that wereagreed upon by Israel, Egypt, Jordan,Lebanon, and Syria after the 1948 Arab-Israeli

War. Essentially, Israel is including more ofthe West Bank on the Israeli side of the wallthan is currently permitted by the international

community. Despite this, Jewish settlerscriticize the government for not havingclaimed the entire West Bank, under the

premise of Promised Land. The international

community has criticized Israel for buildinginto areas of the West Bank that are claimedby Palestinians for a future state, placing anobstacle in the path of future negotiations.Because of this, the International Court ofJustice ruled in 2004 that the barrier is illegal,requesting that it be torn down.274 The rulingdeclared that Israel cannot rely on a right of

self-defense or on a state of necessity in orderto preclude the wrongfulness of theconstruction of the wall, and that the barriers

construction is contrary to international

law.275The completed Barrier will have a total

length of 709 kilometers, which is twice aslong as the length of the Green Lineestablished in 1949, and will include 9.5% ofthe West Bank on the Israeli side of the wall,including East Jerusalem, with 85% of it ondisputed territory.276 In July 2007, TheJerusalem Post estimated that the Barrierwould not be completed until 2010, severalyears after the original estimate, as the projectwas initially meant to be a part of Sharons

Disengagement Plan.277Effects of the Barrier: The winding

structure of the concrete walls, wire fences,

and trenches has already done much to create

disorder in the lives of thousands ofPalestinians. If the barrier in constructed as

currently intended, about 125,000 Palestinians,from 28 different communities, will besurrounded by the barrier on three sides.

Around 26,000 Palestinians from eightcommunities will be completely enclosed bythe barrier on all four sides, with access to therest of the West Bank through only a smallnumber of roads or tunnels.278 The UN ismaintaining a watch on the construction of thebarrier by means of satellite imagery. It is easyto discern the damage done to Palestinian

villages affected by the construction of the

barrier. Many villages have been split, whileothers have been trapped on the outside of thewall.279 Those who have been separated from

their land find it extremely difficult to reachdifferent villages and population centers,because the checkpoints add great distances to

their trips. The barrier has also made it moredifficult for Palestinians to access watersources and medical services in Israel.Moreover, it has caused economic problemssince employment has been increasinglydifficult to acquire.280

According to statistics collected by Israelisources, ever since construction of the barrierbegan, the incidents of Palestinian infiltration,

suicide bombings, and other attacks in Israelisettlements have decreased considerably.Officials claim that further development of thebarrier will prove increasingly effective inpreventing such attacks. However, the UN stillregards the barrier as illegal, equivalent to an

unlawful act of annexation.281

Recent Debates

Beginning in 2004, Israeli officials have

expressed that Israel does not plan to complywith the ruling of the International Court ofJustice. As such, construction of the wall hascontinued, with its route unaltered. Despitethis ruling and rumors of other discussionsamong the international community toimplement sanctions against Israel,realistically nothing has been done to prevent

the continued construction of the illegalbarrier.282 Currently, 58.3% of the barrier iscompleted, 10.2% is under construction, and



22/29

General Assembly 22

the remaining 31.5% has only been plannedout.283 The West Bank barrier has proven to

be a major impediment for peace negotiationsbetween Israel and Palestinians.

Recently, Israel has announced that it is

willing to withdraw from larger sections of theWest Bank than before. The last map Israelproposed included 12% of the West Bank aspart of Israel, but now officials haveannounced that they will settle for 8.5% of theland. Meanwhile, the Palestinians insist on atarget of 2%.284 Israelis also claim that thebarrier is simply a security wall, intended toprovide protection against terrorism, and that it

is not intended to serve as part of a futureborder, as it can be moved after a settlement isreached.285 However, the fact that the Israeli

government has repeatedly ignored demandsby the US and UN for a moratorium on thecontinued construction of settlements in the

West Bank does not seem to indicate a peacesettlement in the near future. Even though theUS has stridently criticized the construction,they have thus far not penalized Israel in anyway.286 The road map for peace, which is stillhighly supported by the US, requires Israel toremove illegal settlements and halt furtherconstruction. At the same time, it calls for thedisarming of militant groups by Palestinians.

Still hoping to make the road map for peacesuccessful, the US believes that the settlementswill definitely hamper negotiations.287

The new Obama administration has beenmore critical of Israels settlement policy. The

Bush administration requested that settlementconstructed be stopped, but they also showedtheir continued support for the country. Theexplicitness with which the Obamaadministration has condemned Israelisettlements has led to rising tensions betweenthe two allies. In unusually sharp language,Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcedin May 2009 that the US demands that Israelfreeze all settlement construction, even that

pertaining to natural growth.288 Natural

growth refers to the building of new housing toaccommodate the expansion of the currentIsraeli population in the West Bank as families

continue to grow, in order to uphold their right

to a normal lifestyle. Israel claims that theyhave the right to continue natural growth, but

the international community argues againstit.289

The continued use of violent tactics on both sides,including terrorist bombings, have made establishing along-term peace extremely difficult.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the current PrimeMinister of Israel, seems much more reluctant

than his predecessor to compromise for peace,as he has shown less flexibility. At the sametime, Netanyahu is careful to avoid a

confrontation with the US government, as the

US is Israels most important ally, and goodrelations between the two countries are

essential to Israeli security and foreign policy.Even though the US has not yet announcedthat it will penalize Israel, they couldpotentially reduce economic or military aid,restrict arms sales, or decrease the sharing ofinformation between the two nations.290

Netanyahu has also called on the Arabstates to normalize ties with Israel, stating

that he is willing to take concrete steps to

achieve peace for the Palestinians. However,like many prime ministers in Israels history,his administration has shown inflexibility with

regard to the issues of the West Bank,Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees. Historyhas proven that the lack of flexibility willsurely impede successful peace talks over suchcontentious subjects.291

Because of the recent conflict with Hamas,Israel, the US, and many other Westerncountries are only willing to negotiation with



23/29

General Assembly 23

Mahmoud Abbaswho leads the PalestinianAuthority from the West Bankas they refuse

to recognize the militant Islamic Hamas

group that controls the Gaza Strip.292 Obamahas sent US envoy George Mitchell to lead

peace negotiations in the Middle East andbegin dialogue with Netanyahu and Abbas.293The continued use of violent tactics on bothsides, including terrorist bombings, have madeestablishing a long-term peace extremelydifficult.

Israeli Security Concerns:Another main issue standing in the way of

a peace settlement between the Israelis andPalestinians is security. Throughout the courseof the Palestinian struggle for liberation,

outbreaks of violence have been nearlyimpossible to control. This has persistentlybeen a major concern for the Israelis, and their

reluctance to make significant compromiseswithout being guaranteed lasting peace iswarranted.294

Furthermore, the threat posed by theostensibly never-ending Qassam rockets thatare launched from the Gaza Strip into areas insouthern Israel is also of great concern forIsrael.295 During the recent Gaza War, themilitant groups of the Hamas faction

developed rockets that had the capability ofreaching targets farther than ever before,extending their reach from 16 kilometers to 40kilometers, and thus placing more than700,000 Israelis within range.296

In 2006 alone, after the disengagement hadbeen carried out and Hamas had assumedcontrol of the Strip, the Israeli governmentdocumented 1,726 rocket attacks, which wasfour times as many as those launched in theprevious year.297

RELEVANT UN

ACTIONSThere are a number of very important UN

resolutions that must be dealt with if any sortof peace agreement is to be reached between

Palestine and Israel for a two-state solution.These resolutions address many of the issues

that still remain in dispute today, and therehave been different interpretations of certainphrases by each side, resulting in heated

debate.On December 11, 1948, during the 1948Arab-Israeli War, the United Nations GeneralAssembly passed resolution 194, whichaddressed the situation in Palestine at thattime, and defined the UNs intention to facilitate peace in the region. The 15-articleresolution addresses many issues, but onlyfour of its articles are highly disputed and

relevant to the present situation. When theresolution was voted on, Arab nations likeEgypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and

Yemen were against its implementation, whileIsrael was in favor of it.298

Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the resolution deal

with the issue of holy places within thedisputed land, as well as the proposal for aUN-controlled Jerusalem, granting allinhabitants of the Israeli-Palestinian region theright of free access to the city under UNsupervision.299 Specifically, Article 7 statesthat Holy Places - including Nazareth -religious buildings and sites in Palestineshould be protected and free access to them

assured, in accordance with existing rights andhistorical practice that arrangements to thisend should be under effective United Nationssupervision, and calls for the establishment of

a permanent international regime for the

territory of Jerusalem.300 Article 8 specifiesthat because of its significance to three majorworld religions, Jerusalem plus the

surrounding villages and towns, should beaccorded special and separate treatment fromthe rest of Palestine and should be placedunder effective United Nations control.301The article also calls for the immediatedemilitarization of the city. In Article 9, theright of the freest possible access to

Jerusalem by road, rail or air is granted to all

inhabitants of Palestine.302Article 11 deals with the issue of right of

return for Palestinian refugees, and it is by far

the most debated section in the resolution. It



24/29

General Assembly 24

specifically states: (The General Assembly)Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to

their homes and live at peace with theirneighbors should be permitted to do so at theearliest practicable date, and that

compensation should be paid for the propertyof those choosing not to return and for loss ofor damage to property which, under principlesof international law or in equity, should bemade good by the Governments or authoritiesresponsible;303

Ever since the 1948 war, and especiallyafter the passing of resolution 194whereright of return was addressed for the first

timethe problem of refugees has been a verysensitive and disputed topic for many countriesin the region. There are several different

interpretations of this article that have beenquoted by both sides since the ratification ofthe resolution.304

Israel has always argued against theinterpretation that refugees should be grantedright of return, pointing to the phrasing of thearticle as support for their argument. Forexample, it has been pointed out that thearticle only gives a right of return to thoserefugees who [wish] to return to their homes

and live at peace with their neighbors, and

only at the earliest practicable date. The

Israeli point of viewas first expressed byDavid Ben-Gurion, Israels first PrimeMinisteris that as long as the Arab refugeescannot be trusted to maintain peace with their

neighbors, the country is not obliged to

compensate the refugees in any way for theirland, or even allow them to return to theirhomes. Israel highlights the fact that manyPalestinians still deny Israels right to exist insupport of their argument.305

Another contested issue is the definition ofthe word refugee itself. It is unclear whether

the term used in the resolution applies tosecond or third generation refugees as well theoriginal ones. In most cases, the descendantsof refugees that have been displace

specpol - study guide2

Documents