The changing dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech at the World Zionist Congress made the outrageous claim that a Palestinian, Haji Amin-al Husseini, a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe

Recent weeks have witnessed violent clashes and protests both in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories over the continued occupation that has lasted almost half a century. Israel’s response to this has also been swift and brutal. Since October 1, Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 56 Palestinians, including unarmed protesters, bystanders and alleged attackers. Eight Israelis have also been reportedly killed by Palestinians in stabbing or shooting incidents.
Videos of these attacks, as well as the reprisals, were broadcast by mainstream media causing some to conclude that the news was fuelling the sense of grievance and then the violence. Binary narratives were also employed by journalists as a storytelling device to present the news and package stories. Social media also played a central role in this latest escalation of violence. As well as videos, images, hashtags and statistics also flooded the blogosphere. Political cartoons were also shared addressing the various criticisms and biases that both sides see in coverage.
This deteriorating situation and associated controversial comments and claims by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem further worsened the situation. This included an outrageous claim by him that a Palestinian, Haji Amin-al Husseini, a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
This upset not only the Palestinians but also many in the Israeli camp- who, according to New York Times (24-25 October, 2015) criticized that “the Holocaust is far too terrible a crime to be exploited for political ends, especially in the state linked so closely to the tragedy of the Jewish people.’ It was also pointed out that it was “outrageous because the only apparent purpose is to demonize the Palestinians and the current leader of the Palestinian Authority and to give the impression that their resistance is based solely on a longstanding hatred of the Jews, and not on their occupation by Israel or any other grievance”.
This cynical effort to distort history was also disagreed with by Chancellor Merkel of Germany.  The ‘Times of Israel’ also agreed with Germany's insistence that it was responsible for the Holocaust and continued by saying that Mr Netanyahu had been "roundly denounced".
Such open criticism in the US Media and elsewhere, including inside Israel appears to have lit the lamp in the US Administration. It eventually led the United States and Jordan, both important players within this paradigm to take a more pro-active engagement to calm tensions amidst the unfolding crisis.
It may be recalled that protests against Israel's ongoing occupation broke out once again in September this year amid growing unrest triggered by Israeli incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound - the third holiest site for Muslims. These protests swiftly spread across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and also among Palestinian communities in Israel.
In his efforts to control the situation, US Secretary of State Kerry appears to have focused on one major issue that many argue has been the root cause of the current conflict: the status quo of what Israel calls the Temple Mount - the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Access to this holy site by Muslims, Christians and Jews are regulated by mutually agreed arrangements. The crucial factor within this equation lies in the Jordanian involvement. This is so because the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound area is administered by the Jordanian Waqf or Islamic Trust- and it is this body that monitors Jewish access in consultation with Israel.
The Israeli government has till now been respecting this arrangement. Israeli groups entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound are consequently accompanied by police and guides from the Waqf are nominally there to ensure that no Jews actually stop and pray on the site. This is also seen as a signal of the putative authority of the Waqf over the site.
This delicate situation has in the past few weeks been under severe pressure. The Jordanians and Palestinians have been arguing that Israel has violated these understandings. Israel has denied the claim and has argued that the Jordanian Waqf has not met its obligations and that the Palestinians, on the contrary, have staged provocations on the Mount.
It may be mentioned here that the sensitivity was affected in the past few weeks because of a series of restrictions placed by Israel on Muslim access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. These ranged from the complete closure of the entire Old City for Muslims to the imposition of age-limits on those seeking to attend Friday prayers. In addition, Israel was apparently trying, according to Shaul Arieli of the “Haaretz” to persuade the Waqf to make “significant changes to the Muslim’s entrance arrangement to the Temple Mount".
The report went on to outline new Israeli instructions - "whereby when there was a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount, Muslims, men or women, under the age of 50 were not allowed to enter". It may be noted here that such measures were thought of because Israeli groups sometimes take tours of the Al Aqsa Mosque compound throughout the week, which effectively means that Muslims under the age of 50 are not allowed access to the site each morning from Sunday through Thursday.
There appears to have been very little doubt about the direct connection of the Netanyahu government to this change. Palestinians thought it to be so because journalists pointed out that among those Israelis who took regular tours of the site were Israeli Cabinet Ministers; in particular Netanyahu’s Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel who in the past publically advocated the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque.
The above measures and their implementation appeared to have cast a shadow on the whole matrix of access to the Holy Site. This ended up in the form of violent protests on the part of the Palestinians.
As a result of this emerging scenario, the latest initiative by the US to overcome this new challenge was very closely monitored by the rest of the world. Consequently, the US declaration after Kerry’s talks with Netanyahu and Jordan’s King Abdullah was cautiously welcomed.
The US has declared that Israel and Jordan have agreed on steps, including 24-hour video surveillance of Muslims, Jews and Christians visiting the Holy Sites. It has been reported in the media that Israel had embraced the “excellent suggestion" by the Jordanian King, for round-the-clock monitoring of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Israel has also given assurances that it had no intention of changing the status quo at the compound in occupied East Jerusalem, home to Al-Aqsa Mosque and another Islamic icon, the Dome of the Rock. Later, in a detailed statement, Netanyahu has also said that Israel recognized "the importance of the Temple Mount to peoples of all three monotheistic faiths... and reaffirms its commit­ment to upholding unchanged the status quo of the Temple Mount, in word and in practice."
 Through this, he echoed Kerry's statement that Israel would enforce its long-standing policy under which Muslims may pray at the site but Jews, Christians and members of other faiths may only visit but not pray, and that Israel had no intention of dividing up the compound. This has been a significant step forward.
It may be recalled that the search for a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem has continued to intensify in fits and starts over the last 25 years. In between we have seen atrocities committed on the civilian population in Gaza and violence perpetrated by Palestinians on Israeli civilians trying to further intensify occupation through the building of illegal settlements. Mark Urban from the BBC has noted in this context that “perhaps the most successful phase of peacemaking, the Oslo Agreement of 1993, involved a combination of approaches, moving forward with a raft of Palestinian self-rule measures in Gaza and the West Bank, while pledging to resolve those intractable questions at the heart of the conflict later”.
Unfortunately, the Israeli far right as well as the Hamas rejected the Oslo approach. Consequently, when in 2000, the second Intifada broke out, this process died out and thousands of lives were lost. The Gaza crisis in 2014 worsened the scene with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas now focusing efforts on taking Israel to the International Criminal Court for this campaign.
The US, France and Germany know that continued expansion of Jewish settlements complicates any eventual two-state solution. They, as well as many Israeli commentators have accordingly advised the resumption of step-by-step peacemaking, including a settlement freeze on the West Bank and a project to increase Gaza's water supply. However, stopping such construction, let alone territorial concessions, is seen as an anathema by many of Mr Netanyahu's right-wing allies.
That raises the question as to how much leverage the outgoing Obama Administration can exert. Kerry’s efforts were welcomed but critics differ as to whether President Obama will be interested in hazarding what remains of his Presidency on Middle East peacemaking. This has led many to believe that further efforts in this direction will be taken probably only by France, a Member of the Security Council, trying presently to initiate initiatives aimed at halting Israeli settlement construction and advancing Palestinian statehood.
Poet Mu'ayyad al-Din Al-Tughari wrote about how life might be limited “without a window of hope." Palestinians today are in dire need of such a window that promises a better tomorrow. Everyone interested in de-escalating the current level of violence in Palestine must accordingly think about how to provide this torch of hope rather than search for more repressive actions aimed at furthering the disunity of a people seeking freedom.
 
The writer, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

The changing dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech at the World Zionist Congress made the outrageous claim that a Palestinian, Haji Amin-al Husseini, a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe

Recent weeks have witnessed violent clashes and protests both in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories over the continued occupation that has lasted almost half a century. Israels response to this has also been swift and brutal. Since October 1, Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 56 Palestinians, including unarmed protesters, bystanders and alleged attackers. Eight Israelis have also been reportedly killed by Palestinians in stabbing or shooting incidents. Videos of these attacks, as well as the reprisals, were broadcast by mainstream media causing some to conclude that the news was fuelling the sense of grievance and then the violence. Binary narratives were also employed by journalists as a storytelling device to present the news and package stories. Social media also played a central role in this latest escalation of violence. As well as videos, images, hashtags and statistics also flooded the blogosphere. Political cartoons were also shared addressing the various criticisms and biases that both sides see in coverage. This deteriorating situation and associated controversial comments and claims by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem further worsened the situation. This included an outrageous claim by him that a Palestinian, Haji Amin-al Husseini, a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe. This upset not only the Palestinians but also many in the Israeli camp- who, according to New York Times (24-25 October, 2015) criticized that the Holocaust is far too terrible a crime to be exploited for political ends, especially in the state linked so closely to the tragedy of the Jewish people. It was also pointed out that it was outrageous because the only apparent purpose is to demonize the Palestinians and the current leader of the Palestinian Authority and to give the impression that their resistance is based solely on a longstanding hatred of the Jews, and not on their occupation by Israel or any other grievance. This cynical effort to distort history was also disagreed with by Chancellor Merkel of Germany. The Times of Israel also agreed with Germanys insistence that it was responsible for the Holocaust and continued by saying that Mr Netanyahu had been roundly denounced. Such open criticism in the US Media and elsewhere, including inside Israel appears to have lit the lamp in the US Administration. It eventually led the United States and Jordan, both important players within this paradigm to take a more pro-active engagement to calm tensions amidst the unfolding crisis. It may be recalled that protests against Israels ongoing occupation broke out once again in September this year amid growing unrest triggered by Israeli incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound - the third holiest site for Muslims. These protests swiftly spread across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and also among Palestinian communities in Israel. In his efforts to control the situation, US Secretary of State Kerry appears to have focused on one major issue that many argue has been the root cause of the current conflict: the status quo of what Israel calls the Temple Mount - the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Access to this holy site by Muslims, Christians and Jews are regulated by mutually agreed arrangements. The crucial factor within this equation lies in the Jordanian involvement. This is so because the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound area is administered by the Jordanian Waqf or Islamic Trust- and it is this body that monitors Jewish access in consultation with Israel. The Israeli government has till now been respecting this arrangement. Israeli groups entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound are consequently accompanied by police and guides from the Waqf are nominally there to ensure that no Jews actually stop and pray on the site. This is also seen as a signal of the putative authority of the Waqf over the site. This delicate situation has in the past few weeks been under severe pressure. The Jordanians and Palestinians have been arguing that Israel has violated these understandings. Israel has denied the claim and has argued that the Jordanian Waqf has not met its obligations and that the Palestinians, on the contrary, have staged provocations on the Mount. It may be mentioned here that the sensitivity was affected in the past few weeks because of a series of restrictions placed by Israel on Muslim access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. These ranged from the complete closure of the entire Old City for Muslims to the imposition of age-limits on those seeking to attend Friday prayers. In addition, Israel was apparently trying, according to Shaul Arieli of the Haaretz to persuade the Waqf to make significant changes to the Muslims entrance arrangement to the Temple Mount. The report went on to outline new Israeli instructions - whereby when there was a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount, Muslims, men or women, under the age of 50 were not allowed to enter. It may be noted here that such measures were thought of because Israeli groups sometimes take tours of the Al Aqsa Mosque compound throughout the week, which effectively means that Muslims under the age of 50 are not allowed access to the site each morning from Sunday through Thursday. There appears to have been very little doubt about the direct connection of the Netanyahu government to this change. Palestinians thought it to be so because journalists pointed out that among those Israelis who took regular tours of the site were Israeli Cabinet Ministers; in particular Netanyahus Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel who in the past publically advocated the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque. The above measures and their implementation appeared to have cast a shadow on the whole matrix of access to the Holy Site. This ended up in the form of violent protests on the part of the Palestinians. As a result of this emerging scenario, the latest initiative by the US to overcome this new challenge was very closely monitored by the rest of the world. Consequently, the US declaration after Kerrys talks with Netanyahu and Jordans King Abdullah was cautiously welcomed. The US has declared that Israel and Jordan have agreed on steps, including 24-hour video surveillance of Muslims, Jews and Christians visiting the Holy Sites. It has been reported in the media that Israel had embraced the excellent suggestion by the Jordanian King, for round-the-clock monitoring of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Israel has also given assurances that it had no intention of changing the status quo at the compound in occupied East Jerusalem, home to Al-Aqsa Mosque and another Islamic icon, the Dome of the Rock. Later, in a detailed statement, Netanyahu has also said that Israel recognized the importance of the Temple Mount to peoples of all three monotheistic faiths... and reaffirms its commitment to upholding unchanged the status quo of the Temple Mount, in word and in practice. Through this, he echoed Kerrys statement that Israel would enforce its long-standing policy under which Muslims may pray at the site but Jews, Christians and members of other faiths may only visit but not pray, and that Israel had no intention of dividing up the compound. This has been a significant step forward. It may be recalled that the search for a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem has continued to intensify in fits and starts over the last 25 years. In between we have seen atrocities committed on the civilian population in Gaza and violence perpetrated by Palestinians on Israeli civilians trying to further intensify occupation through the building of illegal settlements. Mark Urban from the BBC has noted in this context that perhaps the most successful phase of peacemaking, the Oslo Agreement of 1993, involved a combination of approaches, moving forward with a raft of Palestinian self-rule measures in Gaza and the West Bank, while pledging to resolve those intractable questions at the heart of the conflict later. Unfortunately, the Israeli far right as well as the Hamas rejected the Oslo approach. Consequently, when in 2000, the second Intifada broke out, this process died out and thousands of lives were lost. The Gaza crisis in 2014 worsened the scene with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas now focusing efforts on taking Israel to the International Criminal Court for this campaign. The US, France and Germany know that continued expansion of Jewish settlements complicates any eventual two-state solution. They, as well as many Israeli commentators have accordingly advised the resumption of step-by-step peacemaking, including a settlement freeze on the West Bank and a project to increase Gazas water supply. However, stopping such construction, let alone territorial concessions, is seen as an anathema by many of Mr Netanyahus right-wing allies. That raises the question as to how much leverage the outgoing Obama Administration can exert. Kerrys efforts were welcomed but critics differ as to whether President Obama will be interested in hazarding what remains of his Presidency on Middle East peacemaking. This has led many to believe that further efforts in this direction will be taken probably only by France, a Member of the Security Council, trying presently to initiate initiatives aimed at halting Israeli settlement construction and advancing Palestinian statehood. Poet Muayyad al-Din Al-Tughari wrote about how life might be limited without a window of hope. Palestinians today are in dire need of such a window that promises a better tomorrow. Everyone interested in de-escalating the current level of violence in Palestine must accordingly think about how to provide this torch of hope rather than search for more repressive actions aimed at furthering the disunity of a people seeking freedom. The writer, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at [email protected]