Last time, we left off with the tensions between Arabs and Jews, the race to populate the region, the start and end of the Second World War, and the discovery of the horrors of the Holocaust we entered in the year 1947 when Britain had had enough of the governance of the region as they were being pressured, at times violently, by both the Jewish and Arab peoples. The United Nations set out to resolve the tension—I’ll pick up the narrative from there.
The State of Israel and the First Israeli-Arab War 1948
With Britain pulling out on the region's governance, the United Nations attempted to resolve the conflict. The UN proposed a two-state solution—a Jewish state on the Coastal Plain, Negev desert, and part of the Galilee, and an Arab state that includes the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria, and Western Galilee. Jerusalem would be neither Jewish nor Arab but become an International Territory governed by the United Nations.1 The Jewish community accepted this resolution despite concerns about the defensibility of the borders allotted to them. The Arabs rejected the plan, believing that over time and with the financial and military backing of the Arab world, they would be able to eliminate the Jews and establish a singular Arab state.2
Following the Arab rejection of the UN plan, The Jewish leaders declared the state of Israel in 1948. They were quickly recognized as a nation by the Soviet Union and the United States, the two most powerful nations in the world following World War 2. No Arab or Muslim country recognized the new state of Israel. Instead, they declared war on the Jewish people and attacked, starting the first Israeli-Arab War. The combatants: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Yemen against the fledgling state of Israel; after two years of hard fighting, the State of Israel still stood, making small gains in the southernmost portion of the land but, overall keeping the borders allotted to them in the 1948 partition plan.
Nakba
We now enter into one of this conflict's most hotly debated issues. What Arabs call Nakba (disaster in English) is perhaps the defining controversy of the entire conflict. I will begin with the undisputed facts.3
The facts of the case are as follows: by the end of the conflict, somewhere between 300,000 and 700,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes during the war and found themselves on the Arab side of the fighting lines. Some chose to leave voluntarily, not liking the prospect of living under Jewish rule; others left voluntarily, bolstered by Arab expectations of rapid and comprehensive victory. Some Arabs were forced to flee because they were in the way of the two armies clashing. Some were encouraged to move by the Arab commanders, who did not want them caught in the crossfire. Some of them were forcibly expelled by the Israeli army or by armed Jewish militia operating outside of the regular army.4 At the end of the hostilities (no formal peace was declared), these refugees sought to return to their villages and homes and were denied by the Israeli government.
From the Arab perspective, the Israeli government stole the homes of these people and refused to give them back when the war was over. This is why, in today’s headlines, you will hear the talk of “Refugee camps,” but you will see established cities with walls and homes. The governments of Egypt and Jordan named the villages and settlements “Refugee camps” to remind their people that the Israelis (from their perspective) stole their homes. Thus, today, some seventy years later, we have the third and fourth generations of “refugees.”5
Conversely, the Israelis would point out that they were fighting a war against five armies (seven countries but five armies) for their very existence. The Arab peoples had rejected peace and sought to annihilate the Jews in the region. The slogan bandied about in the Arab armies was “drive them into the sea,” a credible threat of genocide, especially to the Jewish people who had just been systematically murdered in the Holocaust for the past decade. There were plenty of Arabs who did not rise up against the Jewish state or leave their homes. All of them were incorporated into the State of Israel. Israel, they would say, had no obligation to bring people into their country who would have been more than happy to see it destroyed by the Arab forces—that wars have consequences and the Arabs would have no sympathy for the Jews if the roles were reversed. They would close by reminding the Arabs that Israel did not start the war. They accepted the UN resolution for peace. It was the Arab world that attacked.6
Arab Retaliation to the State of Israel
Regardless of who won the rhetorical war, Israel won the physical war. The Arab armies failed to meet their objectives, and an armistice agreement was signed in 1949, ending the formal hostilities. Critically, the Arab states did not recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist. In retaliation for the Jewish victory and the refugees not being permitted back into the state of Israel, Arab nations forcibly expelled 900,000 Jews from their respective nations, seizing their homes and properties. Many of these Jewish communities were in place for thousands of years, ever since the Jewish deportation to Babylon in 586 BC. Forced relocation was an all too common experience for the Jewish people over the centuries, but this time, there was a new factor for the Jewish people: the State of Israel.
For the first time in over two thousand years, the Jews had a refuge from pogroms, persecution, and extermination. While Misrahi Jews (Middle Eastern Jews) mourned the loss of their homes, Jews everywhere celebrated the fact that their people finally had a place of refuge, not dependent on the goodwill of Christian, Secular, or Muslim majorities, but rather a place where Jews had power and self-determination. To the Jewish people, the State of Israel was a beacon of hope, a promise that Jews would never again be forced into ghettos and concentration camps—unable to gain entry into other nations due to their ethnicity and religion. When antisemitism raises its persistent head—the Jews have a state.
Before we launch into the next phase of our history, let’s take a look at a map and see where the borders stand.
These are the borders of 1949. It ought to be noted that no Palestinian state existed, nor was there a movement to create one. Jordan annexed the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip.
Six Day War
Almost Twenty years passed, and Israel maintained a relative peace. Outside of a brief armed conflict with the Egyptians known as the Suez Crisis7, the IDF was not militarily engaged with the nations around them. But, a lack of direct military action did not mean peace was real or lasting. The Arab world was regrouping and waiting for the next time to strike, political careers being made on the promises to rid the Middle East of the “Zionists.” Israel was not idle. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, ran extensive operations to gather intellegence on the nations around them—preparing for the inevitable war with their neighbors.
In 1967, as Jordan, Egypt, and Syria were gathering their forces to strike Israel, the state of Israel preemptively struck, dealing massive damage to the three armies arrayed to attack. Perhaps most critically, they demolished the Egyptian Airforce, ensuring air superiority throughout the conflict. Within six days, the IDF conquered the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. Had they not been halted by the United States, the IDF would have likely captured both Damascus and Cairo.
This overwhelming military success both solved and created security issues for the State of Israel. Acquiring the Golan Heights from Syria meant that the Israelis could protect the high ground above their settlements and prevent Syrian snipers and artillery from raining down on the Kibbutzim in the Galilee8. The Jordan Valley, a flat land where any ground invasion of Tel Aviv would be staged, was now under Israeli control. The southern border was well secured by obtaining the buffer zone in the Sinai Peninsula, not to mention the oil fields therein—crucial for a small country with limited resources who are barred from purchasing oil from Saudi Arabia.
While the territory was viewed as essential to Israel’s security apparatus, the civilian populations who lived in the territories created one of the most significant threats to the state of Israel. The responsibility of governance of the populations living in the West Bank and Gaza now fell to the Israelis. This created an existential problem—Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. It exists to be the place of refuge for the Jewish people in times of crisis. Israel is also a Western-style democracy—the only one in the region. The Knesset (Israeli Parliament) has representatives elected by the citizens, who then form coalitions to make governments. If Israel were to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the populations therein, then it is quite possible that Israel would no longer be a majority Jewish state. It would become a majority Arab-Muslim state. As Israeli journalist Haviv Rettig Gur put it, “Israel is a paradox deciding between two existential threats: the prospect of a Palestinian state and the absence of a Palestinian state.”9
Ultimately, at the end of the Six Day War, Israel did not annex the territories10. Instead, the Arab territories in the West Bank and Gaza were governed under a military occupation that, in a form, continues to this day.11
Yom Kippur War and Camp David Accords
Six years passed in the new state of play with Israel’s borders greatly expanded. The Arab militaries had been humiliated by the IDF and were desperate to expiate their shame and retake the lost territories—primarily the Golan Heights for Syria and the Sinai Peninsula for Egypt. On Yom Kippur, the highest Holy Day for Jews, the entire nation was closed down, and most of the citizens were fasting—Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel.
The first three weeks of fighting were quite brutal, and the Jewish people took heavy losses and began to lose some territory. However, after the military got things together, they retook essentially all of the territory they lost, fighting the Arab coalition again to a stalemate. Most significant in this conflict was the change of mindset among some in the Arab world. Israel proved itself to be more than a match for all of the Arab nations in military might. No longer could they persist in the delusion that Israel was a paper tiger and just needed proper coordination from the Arabs to be beaten, and if you cannot beat Israel militarily—it may be in your interest to make peace with them and learn to live with the new Jewish state.
That is exactly what Anwar Sadat, the ruler of Egypt, eventually did in 1978 at the Camp David Accords. Israel traded Egypt the Sinai Peninsula (and all of its oil reserves) in return for Egypt’s diplomatic recognition of Israel’s right to exist, with the United States providing security funding to Israel to make up for the lost revenue from the oil reservoirs, which would be returning to Egyptian hands. During negotiations, Israel attempted to give the Gaza Strip back to Egypt—Sadat refused flat out. He wanted no part of the governance of the region far too many security concerns, particularly from a group called “The Muslim Brotherhood12 that had been operating in the strip since the 1950s.
At the end of the negotiations, a deal was struck, and Egypt became the first Arab nation to recognize Israel’s right to existence.13 A historic move to put Israel on the path to peace, a move that Sadat paid for with his life. Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981, by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Despite Sadat’s death, the treaty with Israel has held relatively stably to this day.
Occupation and Intifada
1979 into the 1980s was a period when Israel moved off the main stage of the world’s attention in the Middle East. With the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the global community was not focused on the Israel-Palestine Conflict. A lack of attention did not mean calm inside the West Bank and Gaza. Military occupation grew honorous for the Palestinian people, viewed as both illegitimate and unjust. There were many complaints the Palestinians had against the state of Israel. I’ll list a few:
Loss of Land—Israeli settlements began popping up in the West Bank during this period. A move vehemently protested against by the Arab residents who saw it as a slow territorial theft by the Jewish state.
Violations of Human Rights—freedom of movement was restricted, the police detained Arabs in the region sometimes without cause, and accusations of harsh treatment by the police.
Economic Hardships—restrictions were placed on trade for Israeli security concerns. Palestinians claimed that these inspections and restrictions hampered their economic prosperity.
Settler Violence—Israeli settlers at times harassed or even attacked their Arab neighbors, not facing significant punishment for their actions.
Lack of Political Autonomy—this one is self-explanatory. Resolutions would come in the 90s
Disputed Jerusalem—The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza (at this point, they were referring to themselves as Palestinians, so I will make the switch) believed that Jerusalem would be their capital. Israel also named Jerusalem as their capital, which led to conflict.
Unresolved Refugee Issue—compensation for lost homes or the right to return is demanded from the Israeli government by many in the West Bank and Gaza.
From these tensions began the first Intifada (Arabic for Uprising or rebellion) in the West Bank and Gaza.
The first Intifada was a response to all of the grievances listed above. While violence did break out and both Israelis and Palestinians were killed, the protests were mostly peaceful, doing much to draw attention back to the land of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians. These uprisings and international pressure eventually resulted in the beginnings of a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, known as the Oslo Accords.
The Oslo Peace Process
The Oslo Peace Process refers to a series of agreements and negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that began in the early 1990s. The process aimed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and lay the groundwork for peaceful coexistence and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. Here are the key aspects of the Oslo Peace Process:
Oslo Accords: The Oslo Accords consisted of two main agreements:
Oslo I (1993): Also known as the Declaration of Principles, Oslo I established a framework for gradually transferring authority from Israel to a newly created Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It also outlined a five-year interim period during which final status negotiations were to occur.
Oslo II (1995): This agreement, also known as the Interim Agreement, further defined the division of responsibilities between Israel and the PA. It divided the West Bank into three zones (Areas A, B, and C), with varying degrees of Palestinian control.
Mutual Recognition: As part of the Oslo Accords, Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security. This mutual recognition is significant and a point of tension between the PLO and groups like Hamas.
Palestinian Authority: The PA was established as a self-governing body with limited powers responsible for governing civil affairs in the Palestinian territories. Yasser Arafat became the head of the PA.
The Birth of Hamas
Rival to the PLO and the PA is the group in the news today; you all know Hamas. Hamas, short for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 during the First Intifada. Its founders included Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a charismatic cleric, and other Palestinian activists. Hamas was initially established as a social and political organization but quickly evolved into a militant group, employing violence and terrorism as means to achieve its objectives. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the European Union, and other countries. In contrast to the PA, Hamas rejects the recognition or cooperation with the State of Israel, which it views as illegitimate.
Rejecting a State—The Second Intifada
While much progress was made during the 1990s14, the process came to a tragic and dramatic end in 2000. President Bill Clinton brought together Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority leader Yassir Arafat for a summit that aimed to establish a Palestinian state once and for all.
The Palestinians were offered 97% of the current West Bank and Gaza in exchange for giving up their “Right of Return” grievance for the Arabs of ‘48. Israel would be able to keep a military outpost in the Jordan Valley, and the Palestinian state would have airspace integrity and the entirety of East Jerusalem, including the Old City. Arafat rejected the peace and statehood, and Barak lost the next Israeli election in a landslide. President Clinton was astounded by his decision, describing Arifat’s decision as “a colossal mistake.”
Several months later, after an incident on the Temple Mount, the second and much bloodier intifada began. From 2000 to around 2005, Palestinian terrorist groups launched numerous suicide bombings and attacks against Israeli civilians, including the targeting of children and teens. In response to these terror attacks, Israel constructed security barriers around many Palestinian settlements and began to enforce a more significant series of checkpoints. The barriers were eventually successful in stopping the terrorism but added to the burden on the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
More than anything else, the Second Intifada severely damaged the Israeli left, who were committed to a two-state solution and peace with the Palestinians. The Israeli left for years believed in the peace process and staked much of their political credibility on the seriousness of the PLO in coming to peace. Not only did Yasser Arafat not accept a peace deal that Clinton characterized as the best possible offer the Palestinian people were ever going to get15, he did not rein in the terrorist militant groups brutally attacking Israeli civilians. Israeli civil society learned a lesson—offer peace and get suicide bombers in return.
2005 Gaza Withdrawl
Throughout the Second Intifada, several hundred Israeli civilians were killed, and over a thousand IDF soldiers were killed, many in the Gaza Strip. In 2005, Israel decided that the defense of the Israeli settlements in Gaza, some of which predated the state of Israel, was untenable given the number of soldiers killed in Palestinian attacks. So, in 2005, the "Disengagement Plan" was enacted. Israel’s military unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, mandating the evacuation of all Jewish settlements from the Strip—21 settlements in Gaza were dismantled, exhuming graves and displacing 9,000 Israelis. Full civil authority and police power were transferred to the PLO and Palestinian Authority. However, Israel restricted the importation of weapons and goods that could be used to make weapons.
2006-2023 Managing Hamas in Gaza
After a tense year, the economic situation was not good in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority was unpopular with the people of Gaza. In January 2006, the people of Gaza elected Hamas as the ruling party of the Gaza Strip. Hamas, who are committed to Islamic Jihad rather than Western-style democracy, proceeded to dismantle the election system and kill the members of the PLO/PA.
In response to Hamas’s bloody takeover, Israel implemented a blockade that Egypt later joined. This blockade imposed severe restrictions on the movement of goods, people, and materials in and out of Gaza. The blockade, while militarily understandable, has affected the daily lives of Gazans for the better part of sixteen years. Various efforts to aid the civilian population of Gaza have taken place throughout that time, including many efforts by the Israeli Kibbutzim living near the Gazan border, who were generally pro-peace and on the Israeli left. Internationally, billions of dollars have been invested in the region to develop infrastructure and finance economic projects. Large portions of it were mismanaged or outright stolen from the humanitarian groups to aid Hamas’s Jihad against the Jews in the Land.
Hamas’s interpretation of the Quran demands not only the subjugation of non-Muslim populations but the outright extermination of the Jews in the land and, eventually, all lands. Since Hamas has taken over the Gaza Strip, they have shot thousands of rockets into Israel, attempting to cause as much death and mayhem as possible. To avoid retaliation, Hamas fires these rockets from children’s schools, mosques, and hospitals to try and keep Israel from retaliating.
Iron Dome, Mowing the Grass, Abraham Accords
After the failure of Oslo in 2000 and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, peace seemed to stall between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel focused instead on economic development and peace with other Arab nations decoupled from the Palestinian conflict. For this strategy to work, Israel needed relative peace with the Palestinians, as other Arab nations are outraged by any Israeli military movement against the Palestinians, justified or not. Since Hamas was committed to Jihad, firing rockets at Israel, the Israelis came up with a novel solution: Iron Dome.
The Iron Dome is an advanced missile defense system designed to protect civilians from short-range rocket and mortar attacks. It consists of radar systems that detect incoming threats, a battle management unit for threat assessment, and interceptor missiles designed to destroy incoming projectiles in mid-air. When a threat is identified, the system calculates its trajectory and, if necessary, launches an interceptor missile to neutralize it before it can hit populated areas. Beyond this, Israelis built bomb shelters in every community and siren systems to warn people to take cover—with these innovations, Israel attempted to treat rocket fire like Oklahoma treats tornadoes16.
Unfortunately, this strategy did not eliminate the need to deal with military attacks from Hamas in more conventional means. To try and buy periods of peace where development could occur, The IDF began to employ a strategy called "Mowing the Grass," a series of periodic military campaigns to weaken and disrupt the infrastructure, weapons caches, and leadership of Hamas. These operations involve airstrikes, ground incursions, and other military actions aimed at targeting the militants' assets while minimizing civilian casualties.
The great success of this strategy came in 2020 with the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements marked a significant shift in Middle East diplomacy. Before, the Arab nations isolated and refused to deal with Israel as a block. After, all sorts of possibilities arise. They were aimed to promote stability and cooperation in the region while addressing their shared major concern, the growing militarism and capability of Iran.17
If the Abraham Accords were the great success of the “Mowing the Grass” strategy, the October 7th massacre was its great failure. Iran, who is the main financier and backer of Hamas, and Hamas itself struck a blow against the nation of Israel and this possible future. No longer would containment be possible for Israel’s defense. Hamas proved themselves unmanageable, forcing Israel to come in and cut them out root and branch. Perhaps the removal of Hamas will pave a path to peace—I do not know—the Saudis and others may come back to the table after all of this—but that is the subject for another newsletter.
Concluding Thoughts
So, there we have it, 586 B.C. to October 7th, 2023. There is much I included I wish I could spend more time talking about, and some events I left out entirely. I hope this gives you a better picture of what has happened in the region and what the major grievances are between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Share with a friend if you find it useful—I’ll do my best to answer any questions you have in the comments below.
These lines were based primarily on where the various villages and settlements were located in 1947—however, there were plenty of Arabs in Jewish territory and vice versa.
“Eliminate” to some meant destroying their governing apparatus and making them a minority community in an Arab/Muslim state. Others meant utterly eradicate all the Jews “From the River to the Sea.”
While all reasonable parties would recognize the following statement as facts—the weighting of the facts would not be agreed upon.
One such instance of note is the Dir Yassin Massacre, where a Jewish militia killed around 117 Palestinians, including women and children. The Jewish Agency in Israel later condemned the massacre—but it remained a significant contention point from the Arab side.
Sixty percent of the Population of Jordan are “Palestinian Refugees.”
As a tour guide in the region, I can tell you from first-hand experience that each side tells this story differently. Some Palestinian guides would say that over a million Arabs were forced from their homes by the Israeli government in a planned relocation. I have heard Israeli guides emphasize the Arab flight and forget to mention that there were documented instances of the Israeli military forcing Arabs from their homes. Like most things in history, the truth is somewhere in between these two narratives. Although, for what it’s worth, I have seen far more honest accounting of the complex history from the Israelis than I have seen from the Palestinians.
The United Kingdom and France were also belligerents against Egypt in the Suez Crisis
Jewish agricultural community rooted in a blend of Zionism and communism. Basically, communitarian farms. They were the backbone of early Israeli life.
The existence of the state would compromise Israel’s physical security, and the absence would degrade Israel’s moral legitimacy (if the occupation continues) or fundamental character as a Jewish state. (if the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were made Israeli Citizens.
Such a move likely would not have been welcomed by the international community.
Civil governance is done by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and was done by Hamas in Gaza. Israel maintains a military presence to secure the borders and control certain aspects of transit.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. It promotes the Quran as the foundation for society, rejecting the West root and branch, calling for Jihad against the West and Western sympathizers. The group gained followers across North Africa and the Middle East, taking root in the Gaza Strip in the early 1950s. Egypt suppressed the organization in 1954 after an attempted assassination attempt of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser. They have operated clandestinely for decades. The Brotherhood saw a resurgence in the late 1980s when they began to operate in Egypt, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank under other names…like Hamas.
Interestingly enough, this peace treaty was the first time the name Palestinian appeared in a diplomatic document, a move protested by the Israeli delegation but ultimately left unchanged.
Most significantly, the transfer of civil authority to the PLO/PA and the PLO’s recognition of the State of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and Israel’s recognition of the PLO as a legitimate body to speak for the Palestinian people.
Written about in Bill Clinton’s biography “My Life,” see excerpt here.
This is slightly wrong—Oklahoma, to my knowledge, doesn’t launch airstrikes back at tornados, and Israel sometimes fires back at Hamas. Not every time, but they do to keep deterrence.
The three major players in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. I will release another newsletter going into the international state of play.
Thanks Zach. Excellent article.