On July 31, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya was assassinated in Iran, just three months after an Israeli airstrike killed seven of his children and grandchildren, according to a report by Xinhua citing Iranian state television.
The day before the assassination, Haniya attended the inauguration of Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, flashing a victory sign while surrounded by Iranian lawmakers. Haniya’s death introduces further uncertainty into the long-term prospects for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
October 7, 2023, is now regarded by Israelis as the darkest day in the country’s 75-year history. On that day, thousands of heavily armed Hamas militants breached the heavily fortified borders of the Gaza Strip, infiltrating Israel. Many Israelis likened the attack to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comparing Hamas to “neo-Nazis.”
In response, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a sustained military offensive against the Gaza Strip, driven by a desire for retribution. Netanyahu vowed that the IDF would continue its fight against Hamas until achieving what he described as a “total victory.” However, Netanyahu did not outline a clear vision for the post-conflict situation but stressed that Israel must retain full security control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
For Palestinians, the conflict in Gaza is the most devastating they have faced since Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. Palestinians fear that the Israeli offensive may be part of a broader strategy to annex all Palestinian territories and completely expel them from the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, Palestinians also cling to the dream of one day reclaiming their lost homeland from Israel based on historical claims. However, this Palestinian vision of “restoration,” much like Israel’s Zionism, remains unattainable.
In Jerusalem, near the burial site of Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, a mountain named in his honor hosts a national monument commemorating Jewish victims of terrorism across multiple generations. Through this monument, Israel seeks to convey a historical narrative: that Jews were persecuted by Arabs long before the Zionists arrived in Palestine.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Jewish population in the area of Palestine numbered fewer than 7,000, comprising about 2.5% of the total population of the Ottoman provinces at that time. Some Jewish communities had existed there for centuries. Over time, the population of the area grew, and the proportion of Jews gradually increased, fueled by both Arab and Jewish immigration.
Most Arab immigrants came from neighboring countries, primarily in search of job opportunities. In contrast, the majority of Jewish immigrants were motivated by religious reasons as well as a desire to escape pogroms in Eastern Europe, with many choosing to settle in the Old City of Jerusalem. These Jewish immigrants were not necessarily seeking to establish a Jewish state Palestine. In fact, most Jews of that time did not subscribe to Zionist ideology, with many even opposing secular Zionism on religious grounds.
By the end of the 19th century, the Arab population of Palestine had grown to about half a million, while the Jewish population, although gradually increasing, totaled only about 50,000—less than one-tenth of the total population.
Around the time of Herzl’s death in 1904, a group of young Zionists, primarily socialists from Eastern Europe, began arriving in Palestine. Among them was David Gruen, who later adopted the name David Ben-Gurion.
In the spring of 1909, Ben-Gurion’s settlement was attacked, and two of his companions were killed, one of them right in front of him. This experience led the future Prime Minister of Israel to conclude that there was an irreconcilable contradiction between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, making conflict seem inevitable.
The year 1917 marked a pivotal victory for the Zionist movement when British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour expressed his support for establishing a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine. Many view this declaration as part of Britain’s strategic plan to wrest control of the Holy Land from the Ottoman Empire. However, like many decisions regarding Palestine, Balfour’s stance was influenced more by emotional and religious beliefs than by purely political considerations.
A staunch Christian Zionist, Balfour believed that the Jews—God’s chosen people—were destined to return to their homeland after two thousand years of exile, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy. He desired to be remembered as a key figure in bringing about this historic redemption.
Yet, like many Western officials of his time, Balfour’s respect for the Jews was tainted by underlying anti-Semitic views. He, along with others, mistakenly believed that “the Jews” wielded significant power and influence, including the ability to shape world events and persuade the United States to enter World War I.
By the end of 1917, Britain had succeeded in conquering Palestine, initiating nearly three decades of rule over the region. During this period, the Zionist movement laid the political, economic, cultural, and military foundations for the future state of Israel. Tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities escalated as large numbers of Jewish immigrants, primarily from Europe, continued to arrive.
As the 1920s began, Jewish immigration was driven less by support for Zionism and more by the strict new immigration restrictions imposed by the United States. Throughout the 1930s, more than fifty thousand Jewish refugees fled Nazi Germany and arrived in Palestine.
The massive influx of Jewish immigrants led to increased violence in Arab countries against Jews, as well as against the British authorities, who were seen as supporting Zionist goals. This unrest culminated in the Arab uprisings of 1936-1939, during which Palestinians rebelled against British colonial rule through general strikes, armed uprisings, and attacks on railways and Jewish settlements. Amid this turmoil, Britain began to view Palestine as an intractable problem. To address this, Britain appointed the Peel Commission, which proposed dividing the land into separate Jewish and Arab states—the first “two-state solution.”
In January 1942, just weeks before the Wannsee Conference, where Nazi leaders discussed the final solution of the Jewish question, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann advocated for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. At the time, the Nazi plans for extermination camps were still unknown outside Germany, but the threat to Jewish existence was already evident through the brutal Nazi occupation of Western Europe and the invasion of the Soviet Union.
To persuade his readers that supporting the Jewish cause was just, Weizmann assured that Jews would no longer embody the anti-Semitic stereotypes prevalent in Western society. He envisioned that the return of Jews to Palestine would unleash their energy and potential, creating value not only for themselves but also for wealthier nations. He likened the future Zionist state to Switzerland—a small country with few natural resources, yet one that became one of the most orderly and stable democracies in Europe. Seven years later, Weizmann would become Israel’s first president. In the meantime, however, the world witnessed the Nazis massacre six million Jews.
In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly proposed the Palestine partition plan, which aimed to allocate roughly equal land areas to Jews and Arabs in Palestine, while placing the Old City of Jerusalem under international administration. The Arabs rejected the plan due to their long-standing opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The Zionists, however, accepted the proposal, though Ben-Gurion anticipated potential conflict and harbored hopes that a territory largely free of Arabs might eventually be achieved.
Following the UN resolution, a series of attacks by Arab militias targeted Jewish communities, prompting retaliatory actions from Zionist organizations. In May 1948, Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence. Prioritizing the creation of a Jewish-majority state over territorial expansion, Ben-Gurion commanded his forces to expel a significant portion of the Arab population—around 750,000 people—who fled to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and neighboring Arab countries, areas that Ben-Gurion chose not to occupy.
This expulsion of Arabs during the 1948 war reflected a continuity of Zionist strategies dating back to the 1920s, when there was a campaign to replace Arab workers with Jewish labor. In that conflict, Israel lost nearly 6,000 soldiers, nearly one percent of the new state’s Jewish population at the time.
By early 1949, as the war came to an end, the armistice border between Israel and its Arab neighbors was established, known as the “Green Line” because it was drawn using a green pencil during the demarcation process. Under the armistice agreements, the Gaza Strip became an Egyptian protectorate, and the West Bank was annexed by the Kingdom of Jordan. Israel, however, controlled more territory than had been allocated in the original UN partition plan, and these newly acquired areas were home to very few Arabs. Those Arabs who remained in Israel found themselves under military rule, which was often authoritarian and marred by corruption.
At the time, many Israelis saw this situation as a practical solution to the ongoing conflict, a necessary measure to ensure security and stability. Conversely, the Arab world viewed the very existence of Israel as a deep humiliation that needed to be rectified. In countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, governments did not allow Palestinian refugees to integrate into society. Instead, they were confined to makeshift camps and were encouraged to hold onto the hope of returning to their lost homeland.
In the first two decades of its independence, Israel achieved remarkable successes and gained global recognition. However, the broader goal of Zionism—creating a secure national homeland for Jews worldwide—remained only partially fulfilled. Many Jews, including Holocaust survivors, chose to stay in their current countries rather than emigrate to Israel.
In the mid-1960s, the landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict was marked by growing tension and violence. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged, driven by the Nakba’s legacy and a determination to establish an Arab state encompassing all of historic Palestine. The PLO’s militant actions, including attacks on Israeli targets and infiltration into Israel, further strained the fragile peace.
By early 1967, tensions were at a boiling point. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s public threats to annihilate Israel heightened fears of another existential threat akin to the Holocaust. In response, Israel’s defense posture shifted from one of vigilance to one of panic.
On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, sparking the Six-Day War. The IDF’s swift and overwhelming victory transformed the situation from a desperate defensive posture to a scene of dramatic triumph. Within hours, the Egyptian air force was incapacitated, and Israel achieved significant territorial gains.
The aftermath of the Six-Day War saw a surge of nationalist and religious fervor among Israeli leaders and the public. Figures like Menachem Begin and other cabinet members advocated for the expansion of Israel’s borders to encompass what they referred to as “Greater Israel,” including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This expansionist vision was underpinned by both religious and nationalist motivations, despite strategic concerns.
The decision to occupy East Jerusalem and the West Bank had far-reaching consequences. Jerusalem, a city of immense religious and cultural significance, became a focal point of the conflict.
This enduring conflict reflects the complexity and intractability of the Arab-Israeli struggle, characterized by deep-seated historical grievances, nationalist aspirations, and competing claims over land and identity. The quest for peace remains elusive, with the cycle of conflict and temporary resolutions perpetuating the region’s instability.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most intractable and enduring conflicts in modern history. The core challenge is that both sides hold steadfast views about the indivisibility of the land, which has become central to their national and religious identities. This makes compromise difficult, as it can be perceived as a betrayal of fundamental values and aspirations.
Effective conflict management must focus on practical measures that improve daily life and promote coexistence, rather than pursuing grand but unrealistic solutions. Creative and compassionate approaches are needed to mitigate the conflict’s impacts and address immediate humanitarian concerns, while broader peace efforts remain stalled.
Source: aljazeera, Sky News
