ST.

LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY

Why They Can’t Get Along

Analysis of the Israel/Palestine Conflict
Jake Dexter
 The conflict in Israel/Palestine has proven persistent because distinctly different groups

of people feel connected, in a multitude of ways, to a geographically very small piece of land.

Those who claim that they cannot get along because these groups have been warring for

thousands of years are simply wrong. While both groups claim very old historical ties to the land,

the conflict itself is one of the late 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Three characteristics of this time

period all played a crucial role in the formulation of this modern conflict; increased nationalism,

colonialism, and anti-Semitism. Without the combination of such forces history would have

yielded a different situation. Equally as important is how each narrative, Zionist and Palestinian,

provide a different version of the history that has unfolded and as a result prospects for peace are

looking increasingly grim.

Central to this conflict are themes of anti-Semitism that became increasingly apparent

beginning in mid 19th century Europe. In both Eastern and Western Europe Jews were facing

oppression in a variety of different ways. In Eastern Europe this oppression manifested into

violence against large numbers of Jews. Arguably the strongest anti-Semitism occurred in Russia

where there were restrictions of employment and residence. Also at this time many Jews were

required to live in an area known as The Pale which hosted continued violence against Jews.

This conflict undertaken by local people with support from local officials, was partially state

sponsored, and resulted several thousand Jews being killed.

In Western Europe, Jews were more commonly integrated into society, and violence

occurred on a much smaller scale. However, one specific event, the Dryfuss affair had a

profound effect on the emergence of Zionism. In short, the scandal involved, A Jew named

Alfred Dryfuss who was a French military captain was wrongfully accused of treason. Theodor
Hertzl, who came to lead Zionism used this event to help create support for a Jewish homeland.
1
Essentially, the Dryfuss affair turned Hertzl from a secular Jew to a hyper nationalist. Most

importantly, Hertzl understood the need to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western Jewry

as well as mobilize a large scale colonial program. This history has profoundly impacted why the

conflict has proved so persistent. These early manifestations of anti-Semitism directly resulted in

the birth of Zionism and the first Aliyot. Without these early patterns of immigration the

situation in Israel/Palestine would be far different, and the population of Jews who feel

connected to the land, due to the immigration of previous generations, would be far smaller.

However, early periods of anti-Semitism are only one part of a multidimensional story.

The notion that a group of Europeans could emigrate and settle a land that was already occupied

is a manifestation of another European trend, colonialism. While today, colonialism is

conceptualized in terms of economic exploitation, marginalization, and euro-centrism,

historically this was not the case. Colonies were vital for the survival of the metropole, and

generally accepted as the status quo. If colonialism was not a European tradition, the settlement

and relocation of Jews would have occurred differently, or potentially not at all. In the words of

Hertzl himself, “If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I

construct” 2 Settler colonialism must destroy to replace and it is therefore directly linked to the

constant conflict we have witnessed in Israel/Palestine and its acceptance in European culture

resulted in the ease of its facilitation. Additionally, because the conflict is one structured around

claims to land, settler colonialism must be held responsible. Territorially, early Zionists engaged

in large scale expansion for agricultural purposes while driving the original inhabitants into the

sand.

1
James Gelvin. “The Israel-Palestine Conflict” (New York. Cambridge University Press,2005) 49.
2
Theodor Hertzl. “Old-New Land” (New York. Wiener Press 1902,1941) 38.
 Another important theme in this discussion is Nationalism. In the 19th and 20th centuries

nationalism was becoming the hegemonic rubric people were using to organize the entire world.

At the time, empires were threaten by the modernity and mastery of high culture that nationalism

represented. The Ottoman Empire was under such threats; however it was clear that as long as

the Ottoman state survived Zionism would not. Therefore, a turning point in the context of this

conflict was the Ottoman choice to enter World War I, but on the side that eventually lost the

war. When the etente forces won WWI, the fate of the Middle East was sealed. The culmination

of WWI meant that the Ottoman Empire would be dissolved, and its former populations would

be under European control. The events that followed proved critical for the development of both

competing nationalisms and based on European influence and the limited control of local actors.3

The British imposed diplomacy was representative of both their massive control, but also

their desire to appeal to all actors involved. They attempted to appease the French, through

Sykes-Picot, the Arabs through negotiations with Hussein as well as the Zionists, with the

extremely important as well as vague document, the Balfour Declaration. Additionally, Western

influence on the development of the opposing nationalism was evident through Woodrow

Wilson’s fourteen points. This document essentially imposed the values of nationalism on the

entire world.4 These external influences came at a time when Arab’s were seriously reexamining

their negotiations amongst a new political terrain. These events resulted not only in the mandate

system, which compromised national sovereignty for Palestinians, but reflected not what would

have been best for the simultaneous development of Palestinian and Zionist Nationalism, but

instead aspirations of more powerful nations. European intervention between the two groups

reduced the capacity for local diplomacy between the parties and in the end facilitated the

3
Charles Smith. “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010) 54.
4
Ibid, 81
development of Jewish nationalism while crippling the development of Palestinian Nationalism.

We still see the West acting as an intermediary between the two groups, and this must be

understood as a negative consequence that is a result of these historical events.

Throughout the 20th century it became clear that Zionism was inching closer and closer to

their goal, while Palestinians were failing to win militarily and locate effective leadership. These

problems were only exacerbated when anti-Semitism flared up again in the middle of the

century, which resulted in extermination of 6 million European Jews. World War Two only

provided more proof for the Zionist cause. In, The Lemon Tree, author Sandy Tolan offers

incredible insight towards the feelings of Jewry at this time.

Alien voices broadcasting from Cairo told her people to go back where they came
from or be pushed into the sea. Some Israelis thought this threat was funny, but
for Dalia, who had grown up amid the silence of unspeakable atrocities, it was
impossible to fully express the depths of fear these threats awakened. Alongside
this fear was a determination, born from the Holocaust, to never again be led like
sheep to the slaughter. 5
Such examples help one understand the thought process not only of the survivors of the

Holocaust, but the world as a whole that was reeling from such a horrible event. The years

following the culmination of the war proved to a critical turning point for both nationalisms. It

was clear that Zionists had succeeded through the processes that have been discussed, and the

ethnic cleansing the followed. However, as Benny Morris has admitted, the ethnic cleansing was

not efficient enough. Palestinians were still living in the territory they desired and were for

obvious reasons unhappy with the situation they found themselves in. In the words of one

Palestinian reflecting on al-Nakba,

5
Sandy Tolan, “The Lemon Tree” (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2006) 3.
 These people have walked off with our home and homeland, with our movable
and Immovable properly, with our land, our farms, our shops, our public
buildings, our paved roads, our cars, our theaters, our clubs, our parks…they
hounded us out of our ancestral patrimony and shoved us into refugee camps. 6
While these stories of victimization must be interoperated in terms of the authors

intention as well as the intended audience they show the human side of the conflict, tap into

emotions, and show how people are affected by such events. While it is hard for outsiders to

understand the feelings Palestinians or Israeli’s have regarding these events, such memoirs give

us a brief opportunity to enter the shoes of a stateless population.

Further military defeats of the Palestinians resulted in a significant change in the way

they perceived nationalism. The Israeli victory in 1967 meant a number of things for all actors

involved. When occupation began, in the wake of Nasser’s failure, it was becoming increasingly

clear that a secular nationalistic movement was not going to yield a Palestinian state. When

political Islam filled this void, peace between the Palestine and Israel took a turn for the worst.

Terrorism became the primary tactic of both resistance and the acknowledgement of the

Palestinian cause on behalf of the international community. This violence of the stateless has had

a profound effect on the prospects for peace between Palestine and Israel. When secular

nationalism failed so did notions of peace.

Since both the first and second intifada’s political Islam is only on the rise in the

occupied territories. The religious and national political group Hamas was elected and continues

to advocate for the destruction of the Israeli state. The complex interweaving of religion and the

nation was a catalyst for the creation of Israel and now challenges its survival. As a result, Israel

is stuck with the task of managing state security because the population they failed to properly

destroy now seeks to do the same upon them. To consider peace we must understand the
6
Fawaz Turki. “Reflections of al-Nakba” Journal for Palestine Studies, Vol 28, pg 12, 1998.
historical events that have resulted in the current situation as well as examine the relationship

between Israeli’s reason for their existence, and Palestinian reasons for injustice. While peace

processes fail to bridge that gap, both populations of people will only grow, exacerbating current

issues and reducing the hope of a two state solution. For these reasons the prospects for peace

only decrees with time.

 Works Cited

Gelvin, James. The Israel-Palestine Conflict. New York. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hertzl, Theodor. Old-New Land. New York. Wiener Press, 1902, 1941.

Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin Press, 2010.

Tolan, Sandy. The Lemon Tree. New York. Bloomsbury Press, 2006.

Turki, Fawaz. Reflections of al-Nakba. Journal for Palestine Studies, Vol 28, 1998.