Brought forth under the guidance of the United States, the main objective of the Arab-Israelis peace proposal is to increase the land holdings for the Palestinian people.  The question must be raised as to whether or not an increase in land will ignite peace between the Palestinians and Israelis?  Is an increase in land enough to resolve this conflict that is deeply embedded in years of constant bloodshed, resentment, and hatred?  Before plunging into such an intricate question, one must first examine the history between these two opposing groups-history provides the necessary backdrop for understanding the immediate problem at hand.  Thus, the first segment of the paper will provide the reader with a history that incorporates both sides of the story--by uniquely intertwining the commonalties and differences between both perspectives.  Because of a time a constraint many events will be left untouched.  Through the guidance of this historical framework, the second part of the paper will focus on the current situation in Palestine by examining the film "The Land and the People".  The role of the United States will also be addressed in this section.  We plan to reveal the untold truth about the United States involvement in Israel--what the American people don't know.  The final section examines the present peace proposal-Is peace possible in Israel?

The Palestinian-Israel conflict has been a heated issue for decades, however, many do not truly understand what this historical dispute is about.  It is not an ancient or religious conflict.  It is a political dispute over land in Palestine that started in 1882.  Before continuing, it is necessary to explain to the reader who the Palestinians and the Israelis are--what defines these two separate ethnic groups?  The majority of the Jewish settlers (the Israelis) fled from various parts of Eastern Europe because of anti-Semitic pogroms.  Pogroms were life-threatening riots that aimed to expunge Jewish integration into European society.  The majority of the Jewish population yearned to have their own homeland--they wanted to relinquish the chains of anti-Semitism.  In light of the Palestinians, 90% are Muslim, 9% are Christians, and the remaining 1% are Druzes.  However, the term, "Palestinian", developed only recently in the late part of the twentieth century--it was implemented into the language of the global arena once the Arab's were recognized as a national entity.  Prior to this, the Arab people of Palestine were viewed as refugees without a national identity.  Why were the Arabs not recognized?  After World War II, the consensus in the international arena was the following: It was necessary for the Jewish people to have a homeland in Israel.  In order to conform to the worldly thinking of the time, the Arabs could not be recognized as a national entity.  Therefore, the Arabs were overlooked which allowed the gates of Jerusalem to open for Jewish settlement, and in turn drove the Arabs off their homeland.

According to the Jewish religion, the Jewish people were forbidden to return to the soil of Israel until the Messiah came.  What triggered the idea of returning to their homeland in Israel?  How did an idea that was in complete contradiction to their religion emerge?  I would argue that the environment in Eastern Europe was a fertile ground for the rebirth of a Jewish homeland.  The Jewish population was forced to live in remote, designated areas, such as the Pale of Settlement.  Separated from the rest of the European society, the Jewish population turned inward, strengthening their customs, beliefs, and values.  And furthermore, their lives were plagued with discrimination, looting, murder, rape, and arson, day in and day out.

" From their hiding places in cellars and garrets the Jews were dragged forth and tortured to death... Many mortally wounded were denied the final stoke ... in not in a few cases nails were driven into the skull and eyes gouged out.

Babies were thrown from the higher stories to the street pavement" (53, Elon).

The more the Jews were oppressed the more they clung to their distinct ways.  As a reaction to the suffering and discrimination, Zionism emerged as an avenue of escape.  The World Zionist Organization of 1897 was composed of 204 delegates, who adopted a political program that guided the Zionist movement for decades.  "The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." Zionism emphasized the Jewish people were one nation, regardless of cultural differences.  And also believed anti-Semitism was inevitable; anti-Semitism was genetic.  Because of these conditions, Zionism strongly encouraged the creation of a Jewish nation in Palestine.

This new way of thinking catalyzed waves of Jewish immigration to Israel.  Between 1882-1939, an estimated 375,000 Jewish immigrants fled to Israel.  Inspired by the Zionist organization, the Jewish nation was founded on the principles of Jewish agriculture and labor.  " The Jewish people must cultivate and develop their own land in order to establish strong roots for our state".  Labor was the link between the Jewish people and their homeland.  Through the movie Anou Banou, the importance of labor was highlighted through the story of a Jewish couple, who were unable to work because of physical handicaps.  They chained themselves together and committed suicide-they didn't want to betray the Jewish ideal.  "Life will never be more beautiful then this, let's capture this moment and die together".

It is evident that a major element in the history of the Jewish settlement has been glossed over thus far in this paper.  There has been little mention of the indigenous Arab population.  The reason is a simple one.  In light of the Jewish settlement, for the first two or three decades, the Jewish people ignored the possibility of a native population.  The Jewish people displaced the idea of the existence of Arabs.  It was an idea that was deeply suppressed.  "The land without people-for the people without land" was a popular belief throughout the Zionist organizations until as late as 1917. (Elon, 149).  When faced with the possibility of Arab opposition, the Zionist settlers dismissed such a notion with the assertion that the pre-mature indigenous people would benefit from the Jewish population's superior economic and societal growth.

Contrary to the Zionist dreamers, the Arab population was prevalent throughout Israel.  The infiltration of the Jewish people caused a national revival within the Arab society.  Before 1914, the Zionist organization purchased land from absentee landholders--thousands of Arab peasants were evicted from their land and were replaced by Jewish settlers.  The purchasing of Arab land continued by the National Jewish Fund.  They were responsible for one of the largest land scandals in Israel-they purchased Jerzel Valley, the most fertile land in all of Israel.  Because more and more Palestinian land was going into the hands of the Jewish people, the Arabs feared being the minority in their homeland.

The threat of the Jewish population urged the Arab population to unite.  Thus, Arab Nationalism was constructed as a means not only to justify the Arab nation's status, but was also constructed to combat Jewish dominance in Israel The Arab people restored the freedom of press in 1908, which caused a revival of newspapers.  The Filastin played a vital role in promoting unity against Jewish land purchases.  A major emphasis was placed on increasing education in order to revitalize the Arabs' culture, history, and language.  In addition, the Arab people also focused on the teachings of the Kharan; the Muslims had not been practicing religion properly due to European corruption.  Through these internal changes, the Arab people aimed to strengthen the Arab community in order to defend themselves against the tyranny of the Jewish settlers.

Despite the Arabs response to Zionism, the balance of power continued to shift in favor of the Jewish population.  On Nov 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was proposed by Great Britain, which favored establishment in Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people (Balfour Declaration).  Lord Balfour, the foreign minister of Great Britain, submitted a memorandum to the British government further illustrating the mistreatment of the Arab people.

"For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the country ... The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.  And Zionism, be it good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,00 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land" (Balfour Memorandum).

The Belfour Declaration opened the gates of Palestine for more than 550,000 Jews mostly from Europe between 1918 and 1948.  The Palestinians received another harsh strike from the International community.  The British mandate declared independence for a Jewish state (Israel) after World War 11.  This final blow to the Palestinian people caused a half a million Palestinians to be chased out of their homes for being the wrong kind of human.  They managed to hold on to the mountains and the Gaza Strip.  Between 350 and 418 villages that had existed during the mandate period were depopulated and demolished while other Arab villages were quickly filled by Jewish settlers.  By 1953, over one-third of Israel's Jewish population lived in absentee Arab population. (Beinin, 98).

How do the Palestinians and Israelis stand today?  Reflecting on the current situation in Palestine, one must look to the people of Israel-the people's thoughts, views and perspectives.  The movie "the Land and the people" depicts the present view in Palestine through various interviews of people representing both sides of the story.  Through the lens of the camera, the viewer is able to step inside Palestine-allowing them to feel the tension between these two ethnic groups.  One must understand that the media coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict is skewed because the military inhibits journalists from revealing the entire story.  All media footage is screened by the Israeli military before leaving the country.  "It's the prism between your brain and understanding" (The Land and the People).  Despite these constraints imposed by the Israeli military, the film crew of " The Land and the People", probe into the controversial issues that are commonly left untouched by everyday media.  The movie is broken down to three segments.  Part 1, "the Black Curtain" examines the border controls enforced by the Israeli government.  Part 2, "Clues", focuses on the occupation of Palestinian homes.  The final part, " Hell" reveals the impact of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the Palestinian children.

For the first time in history, Jerusalem is closed off from the Arabs in West Bank and the Gaza strip.  According to an Israelis journalist, "120,00 workers who have become dependent of Israel's economy have been shut out.  The Israel government said goodbye, goodbye". (The Land and the People).  Licenses are needed to pass through military checkpoints throughout Israel.  The producers of The Land and the People rented a car with blue plates, indicating that the car was from an Arab country, in order to see how the Arab people are treated at the border stations.  They were stopped for over an hour.  When one of the Journalists asked, "Why are being stopped?  " The Israelis soldier responded," The car is from Arab country.  It's not Israelis.  It's not Israelis.  Do you understand?" (The Land and the People).

The closing of borders is not the only thing that the Palestinian people have been shut out from.  The military officer exclaims, "Our target is to build houses according to the master plan".  This plan was set forth by the Zionists organization in the 1930's--which has already been discussed in the previous section, so I will not go into drastic detail.  However, the housing project brought forth by the Zionist organization has not changed since it was first implemented.  While homes are being built for the Jewish people, houses are being destroyed for the Palestinians.  More than 2,000 Palestinian families have lost their homes.  As one Palestinian exclaims, "We feel as though, people are trying to kick us out of Palestine because the only concern is to build a pure state of a certain kind" (The Land and the People).

The final segment of the movie paints a morbid picture for the viewer, revealing the numerous causalities of Palestinian children.  " If you wanted to relieve an entire population of their homeland, discreetly, circumspectly, where would you look for the soft spot?  The Children.  Palestinian schools have been shut down for three years at a time.  The closure of schools increases the targets on the streets.  "When two children die it is an accident, when over 200 children die it's a policy", explains a Palestinian mother (The Land and the People).

Is the peace proposal capable of bringing about change?  Before addressing this question, we must reflect on the United States role.  The United States as served as the mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians in the peace process, but have made futile attempts to bring about peace between them.  The United States portrays themselves as martyrs, aiming to change the status quo in the Middle-East.  Although, this so called peace process, as Stork explains, "[is] an illusion of purposeful activity and functions to forestall any compromise that would meet minimal Palestinian demands of self-termination" (Stork).  It is evident within the context of policy-making in the United Nations, the United States has single-handedly vetoed dozens of International resolutions relating to the conflict in Palestine.  Including a two-state proposal brought forth by the Palestinians.  In retrospect, the fate of Palestine lies with in the hands of the American government.  One might ask why is the United States government pro-Israel?  Heavily influenced by the Jewish lobbyist, the US administration continues to favor Israel.  Not only in policy making, but also in funding.  Since 1967, Israel has been the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid--receiving over a total of 77,000,000,000 billion dollars in financial aid.  The U.S. foreign aid law prohibits military and economic aid to any country which engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights"(The Land and the People).  As long as the Jewish lobbyist continue to influence policymaking, the United States will continue to throw down the Trump card-favoring the Israelis.

The Current Situation

The interaction between the Palestinians and Israelis is anything but peaceful.  The Middle East is a festering problem with no clear solution anywhere in sight.  This conflict is about two nations, bound together by myriad of geographical, historical, political, economic, and cultural links, destined to fight over--or agree to share--the same piece of land.  The process of peace has historical roots, and much action will have to be taken in order to restore peace, if peace is really possible in the Middle East.  This section will attempt to answer the question, is peace possible, by discussing the past attempts at peace and why they haven't worked.  This paper concentrates on Israeli/Palestinian peace efforts and negates the efforts of other nations throughout the peace accords.

Israel, whose ultimate goal is to live in peace with its neighbors, must be willing to sacrifice and negotiate.  Israel would have to, "withdraw from certain territories, recognize a certain Palestinian national authority, and grant residence permits to a certain number of Palestinian returnees according to a certain procedure, all of which would be clearly specified in peace terms.  In what spirit Israel would do these things would be secondary" (Kerr 12).  The Palestinians, whose ultimate goal is the creation of an independent nation-state, will stop at nothing to succeed.  Arab interests and aspirations are diverse, they would have to accept Israel as a state and develop normal relations with it. Although it is Israel against whom the most tangible terms would be imposed, there is no getting around that any Arab recognition of Israel under any circumstances would engage a powerful and damaging symbolism of failure and

dishonor.  As of right now the peace that exists is not a product of mutual goodwill, but rather a product of necessity.  The peace in the Middle East is superficial and lacks trust and confidence from both sides.

Now that there is an understanding of what each side must consent to, and after reviewing a brief history of the Middle East situation, the question of the possibility of peace still remains.  On paper and in words, yes, peace seems not only possible, but almost easy.  But in order to really understand the situation we must place ourselves in the Middle East, and still the intensity of the conflict is unfathomable.  Each side sees the wrongs of the other side but fails to see the wrongs they have committed.  Each willing to accept apologies but reluctant to offer them.  Part of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians stems down to simply their differing beliefs and values. other parts of the conflict deal with land rights, politics, economics, religion, government, and societal attitudes.

The situation in the Middle East has a lot to do with the way the Israelis believe and the goals that they share which guide them into their actions.  Firstly, they believe in the cardinal importance and sanctity of the Land of Israel.  This is one of the main reasons why it is difficult to offer up land, since, "The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel," (Kass 79) is a slogan lived by in the "holy land".  They believe in the eternal uniqueness of the Jewish people, that they are a nation endowed with divine destiny and a special mission.  They visualize themselves as the "chosen people" and superior to all other nations (one can see why such conflict would arise when forced to live with people of different faith).  With this idea the Jews treatment of the "inferior nations" is justified.  Israel views their conflict with Palestine as, not normal, but rather as an eternal battle between good and evil.  These sets of beliefs add to the hostility brewing in the Middle East, and with these ideas peace certainly isn't possible.

Although the two nations agreed to peace on paper and in words their actions display otherwise.  The hostility heightens every day as the Arabs and Israelis constantly clash.  Peace is not merely the offering of land and promises but almost a mental state, and each side perceives the other as inhuman and not worthy of respect, peace in the land is unachievable under these conditions.  Peace accords are often times unsuccessful because the nations (Israel and Palestine) themselves are not united in their resolutions.  Israel, for example, is driven by deep societal, economic, political, cultural, and ethnic cleavages.  One unified solution is not acceptable for all the people, which stirs up opposition from all angles.  The agreements are only embraced by fifty percent of the population, if that much (Kass 62).

The idea that the way towards real peace is that, "you relinquish holy land with a tear in your eye and an ache in your gut," (Bronner) is only temporary and gives a false notion of peace.  To truly have peace the people must have a mind set, be willing to set aside differences, and accept one another as equals.  This "land-for-peace" is based on efforts to balance the competing needs and ambitions of Israelis and Palestinians, but is not enough.  There is no true feeling of reconciliation, they have to make a deal "with no soul or spirit because there is no good feeling" (Bronner).  "For the process of peace to go on, there must be trust and understanding between the two sides and a joint will to move ahead to an overall agreement.  What has happened in the recent months doesn't bring us any nearer to that," stated Shlomo Gazit, a former director of Israel's military intelligence.

One important reason that true peace is not possible is because although the Arabs and Israelis agreed to "peace" many years ago, they did nothing to alter the sense that they had of each other, causing hate and mistrust to build up internally.  It is a fact that schools on both sides have no lessons on history dealing with the other side. Maps in Palestinian schools contain cities that were formerly Palestinian but were destroyed by Israeli troops, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are Israeli now.  While the Israelis refuse to acknowledge the Palestinian history or culture.  With these attitudes the awful, mutual perceptions of the opposite side are passed on to younger generations, and are manifested in the treatment of each other.

Just because the word "peace" is written on a piece of paper and signed by the leaders of two nations does not mean that peace truly exists.  This is exemplified in the way the Palestinians suffer from Israel's unjust, and unequal rules and regulations.  For example, Israel had made checkpoints, bans on home building, severe restrictions on trade, industry, and movement.  Ruthless killings and attacks on human rights occur regularly, from both sides of the conflict.  Revenge is a common word in their vocabulary and it is never ending.  It is virtually impossible to live in a nation where such injustices occur.  Palestinians feel that they are separate but unequal, and are unwilling to live under this system; this is when the true conflict begins.

Palestinian society has deep roots and is unforgiving of those not a part of it.  "Israel is seen as a threat in the most fundamental way to the values of many in the West Bank and Gaza.  To many there, Israel stands for sexual permissiveness and godlessness, and so the fight against it goes beyond a fight over land and sovereignty' (Bronner).  Palestinians add to the conflict in a variety of ways: propaganda, protest, proselytizing government officials, infiltrating agents, devising plans, assassinations, terrorism, guerrilla and conventional warfare.  And with each new slaying or injustice tension mounts, anxiety stirs, and hate manifests.  These actions are irreversible, and as each one occurs war approaches.

To answer the question, "Is peace really possible in the Middle East?' one must place themselves in the midst of the conflict.  Peace will never occur in the Middle East because the people are unwilling to sacrifice their own beliefs and accept the beliefs of others, particularly when dealing with these two extreme groups.  Several politicians have made lists of specific requirements that would supposedly bring peace, and believe that if all of the small issues are settled (such as the right to land), peace will occur.  But peace is more than a set of agreements it is a deep understanding, trust and acceptance, from all of the people of a nation, on both sides.  And after reviewing the current situation peace is not coming anytime soon, and much work and changes in mind set are going to have to occur, which is unlikely.  In conclusion, peace is not anywhere in the near future, and war is inevitable in the Middle East.

The Israeli Perspective

The heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is hard to understand without seeing it through the eyes of a person in the midst of the terror.  In order to get a taste of the feelings that encompass this conflict it is helpful to understand how each side justifies their actions.  This section will explain the Israeli motives and justifications, by discussing their religious beliefs and values.  It will also give a personal account of the conflict, one that would be easier for the people not directly involved to understand.

To many people the God who was revealed to the ancient Israelites remains what he has always been, almighty, but to others the God of Israel is fiction.  The conflict arises because the Jews (Israelis) have a passionately held and militant faith, and they use this to justify actions taken against people of opposite faith.  "To the Jews they were ready to ascribe a total, active, malign confidence in their role as an elect group, convinced of their mission to lord it over all other nations" (Jacobson 7).  The people of Israel were convinced that god had declared them the "chosen ones" and they were superior to all other people.  These notions were in publications such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were read and believed by the Jewish population.  Conflict is inevitable when a population holds these views close to heart.  They also believed they had an ultimate title to the land, "they believed that they had been called by their God to wander through the wilderness, to meet and defeat the heathen, and to occupy a promised land on his behalf" (Jacobson 10).  The religion of Israel was centered on the idea of a people to whom God had declared his favorites and bestowed upon them a territorial identity.  This explains the passion displayed by the Israelis when defending their land.  "The Land of Israel was vouchsafed to the Jews by Providence," (Narkiss 121) is the statement that is at the heart of many Jews, and justifies their claims to the land.  The Israelis also feel that they have fought hard for this territory and besides the fact that God had ordained them land; they have suffered for it, and in essence earned rights to the land.

The Israelis view the Arabs as a constant threat.  They justify their actions not only through their faith but also by claiming that they are insecure about their safety at all times.  Palestinians are seen as evil killers and terrorists.  Jews have stated that, "We feel that we are not secure as people who are surrounded by settlers who will attack an old man picking olives" (Sontag).  Arabs are seen as invaders, pests trying to get their hands on land which is not theirs.

Conclusion

The answer to the proposed question, "Is Peace Possible in the Middle East?" is not as simple as it seems.  It all depends on the definition of peace.  After reading about the history of the conflict in the Middle East and the current situation one knows the amount of hostility involved in the conflict.  And by further reading both the Israeli and Palestinian perspective one can begin to feel the tension and relate to each sides situation.  On paper "peace" is often written, and leaders sign these papers with good intentions, but although peace is stated and agreed upon it doesn't occur.  Peace is a change in attitude, each side must put the past behind them and accept each others beliefs, values, and faith in order for peace to prevail.  And in this particular situation, where two feuding, strong minded groups are involved, this is unlikely to occur.  Therefore peace in the near future is not only not possible but war, hatred, tension, terrorism, and inequality inevitable.

Bibliography

Beinin, Joel, "Poitical Economy and Public in a State of Constant Conflict: 50 years of Jewish Statehood," Jewish Social Studies, no. 3, 1998.

Bronner, Ethan.  "Filling in Peace's Details Is the Painful

Part." New York Times 25       Oct. 1998: A5.

Elon, Amos, The Israelis: Founders and Sons, New York, 1989. 

Jacobson, Dan.  The Story of the Stories.  New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1982.

Kass, Ilana, and Bard O'Neill.  The Deadly Embrace.  New York: University Press of      America, 1997.

Kaufman, Edy.  Democracy, Peace, and the Israeli-Palestinian

Conflict.  Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993.

Kerr, Malcolm H. The Elusive Peace   in the Middle East.

Albany: State University of    New York Press, 1975.

Narkiss, Uzi.  Soldier of Jerusalem.  Portland: Valentine Mitchell, 1998.

Sontag, Deborah.  "Netanyahu Fighting for Pact, His Future." New York Times 23 Oct. 1998: A6.  Sontag, Deborah.  "2 Killings Increase Tensions on West

Bank." New York Times 27       Oct. of 1998: B6.

Stork, Joe "U.S. Policy and the Palestine Question," in

Hooshang Amirahmadi (ed.), The United States and the Middle East: A Search for New Perspectives, State University of NY Press, 1993.

The Land and the People.  PBS Productions, 1996

Ethics of Development in a Global Environment (EDGE) | War & Peace | The Middle East in Transition | Updated July 26, 1999