Will there be peace in the Middle East?
Hardly without a paradigm shift.
Palestine-Israel 101
Also Available @
Section 0 - The Basics.
Foreword, historical overview without the claim of completeness
This text is supported by factual sources, but the main idea is that before anyone wishes to argue on the subject, they should conduct their own research and exploratory work to be able to participate in any dialogue in an informed and unbiased manner.
Both Israel and Hamas (and other Palestinian factions) have a long and bloody history in light of attacks and counterattacks, which complicates the identification of the "first aggressor." The establishment of Israel in 1948 led to a multi-front conflict with surrounding Arab states and Palestinian groups, with the country and its citizens fighting for survival and occupying strategic areas.
The situation is complicated as radicalized factions on both sides provide new pretexts for retaliation to the adversary, fueled by revenge, leading to more insane terrorist acts, pogroms, and bloody atrocities, while the moderate majority suffers the most on both sides.
An observer errs if they assess the situation merely as a religious-origin conflict; in reality, it is neither religiously motivated nor conflictual in nature. Although religion has significant importance, the main direction should be sought in political reasons, with a heavy emphasis on geo-political details.
Some argue that labeling the situation as a "conflict" misrepresents reality. They believe that the term "conflict" suggests equal or mutual aggression between the two parties, which, in their view, does not adequately describe the situation, especially from a Palestinian perspective, as mostly asymmetric warfare is ongoing. Due to the large power differential, the weaker side tends to resort to unusual, often ruthless tactics. Particularly when the feeling of oppression is strong considering the regularly thwarted international and legal processes and the personal and social tragedies rooted in ongoing violence.
Certain groups have strong views that what is happening is not a 'conflict', but an 'occupation'. They emphasize Israel's military occupation over Palestinian territories and the systemic human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians. They consider the use of the term "occupation" to be a more accurate description concerning the historical and ongoing control and displacement of Palestinians.
When considering the anticipated impacts of the desired peace in the Middle East, it's important to mention that this region is, in many ways, a microcosm of the world. In this small area, multiple cultures, religions, and nations meet, which often clashed with each other due to long-standing tensions and conflicts.
If a lasting and fair peace could be achieved in the Middle East, it could serve as a significant example for other hostile regions of the world. Creating a culture of harmony and mutual respect in the Middle East could demonstrate that, despite deep-rooted hostility and disagreements, it's possible to find cooperative and peace-seeking solutions. Such an example could provide inspiration to other conflict zones, showing that through dialogue, empathy, and striving towards common goals, progress can be made even in the most difficult situations, following the footsteps of the achievements in South Africa and Northern Ireland.
Peace in the Middle East could accelerate the formation of global community harmony and cooperation, laying the foundation for a truly global, intertwined, and mutually supportive community. A community that rejects settling any future disagreements with a medieval mentality – through warfare.
Some historical facts important for understanding the context
The Red Scare and its Precursors
​
The "Red Scare" or "Red Terror", which appeared in the United States in two waves in the early and mid-twentieth century, reflects deep concerns and paranoia within American society regarding communist infiltration and subversion. The first wave began after the 1917 Russian Revolution and lasted until the early 1920s, while the second, perhaps more known wave, started in the late 1940s and lasted until the mid-1950s, with McCarthyism being influential in American political circles. Nowadays, it seems to rekindle similarly as the conservative and capitalist momentum wanes, this always appeared to be a good idea to the heavyweights of world politics.
Cold War and the Impact of Red Scare on US Foreign Policy
During the Cold War, which started post-World War II and lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Red Scare and the perception of the communist threat significantly influenced US foreign policy, including its policy in the Middle East.
​
US-Israel Strategic Partnership
​
A strategic priority for the United States was to limit the expansion of Soviet influence and support countries resisting communist expansion. Israel, established in 1948 and facing hostility from Arab countries from the outset, emerged as a strategic partner that could be supported by the United States in this context.
​
Additional Factors and Middle Eastern Policy
​
Although the "Red Scare" and the general fear of communism strongly influenced the US foreign policy decisions during the Cold War, its Middle East policy was much more complex, and several other factors - such as oil, religious and cultural ties, and the political influence of the Israeli-American diaspora played roles. World politics have changed significantly since the end of the Cold War, but the political decisions of the United States and other countries continue to be influenced by past events and historical memory.
​
Zionist Terrorism
​
It's worth mentioning terrorist acts committed by Zionist paramilitary forces, which caused many headaches for the British in the early period, including the attack on the King David Hotel carried out by Irgun in 1946. Many directly associate the establishment of the State of Israel with these early terrorist acts.
Peace Negotiation Processes and Rejections.
Early Peace Processes:
​
Camp David Accords (1978)
Led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, laid the foundation for Palestinian autonomy. Most Palestinian factions rejected it, as it did not explicitly recognize a Palestinian state.
Madrid Conference (1991)
The first attempt to initiate peace negotiations after the Gulf War. Although it paved the way for future negotiations, no substantial agreements were made.
​
Oslo Era:
​
Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995)
A significant step towards peace, established the Palestinian Authority, and provided them with limited self-governance. Some factions from both Israel and Palestine rejected the accords.
​
Further Initiatives:
​
Camp David Summit (2000) and Taba Summit (2001)
The latter tried to salvage peace after the failed Camp David Summit, but the negotiations ended without an agreement.
Annapolis Conference (2007)
Attempted to achieve a two-state solution by the end of 2008. Though progress was made, no final agreement was reached.
​
There are debates over whether some peace proposals were made with good intentions. Critics argue that certain proposals were designed to be rejected, thus making the other side appear unwilling to negotiate in public opinion. Among those working or inclined towards Israeli-Palestinian peace, several have fallen victim to assassination, and some of these could have represented significant steps forward in the peace process.
A significant example of this is Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was killed in 1995 by a Jewish extremist because Rabin signed the Oslo Accords and committed himself towards moving in the direction of Palestinian autonomy. The assassination deeply divided Israel's domestic politics and stalled the peace process.
​
Ahmed Jabari, the leader of Hamas's military wing, was killed by Israeli forces in 2012 while trying to finalize a long-term ceasefire. His assassination marked the beginning of a week-long series of attacks in Gaza, during which more than 100 Palestinian civilians lost their lives.
Raed Al Karmi, a militant leader of the Fatah party, was killed by Israeli forces in 2002 after all Palestinian militant groups had agreed to a ceasefire, which this event interrupted.
Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, a high-ranking Hamas militant, was killed by Israeli forces in 2001. At that time, Hamas adhered to the agreement not to attack targets within Israel.
Khaled Meshaal, the chairman of Hamas's political bureau, was the target of an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997, although the attempt failed. On some occasions, Meshaal indicated that he would be willing to make peace under certain conditions. After Hamas's electoral victory, he said that his group was ready to negotiate a fair peace with Israel. In contrast, he did not give up violence which greatly limited further peace talks.
Mentionable events that further fueled passions and extreme shifts on both sides and caused disturbance in the local and global societies:
1936-1939: The Arab Revolt
​
In 1936, an Arab national committee called on the Palestinians for a general strike, tax refusal, and boycott of Jewish products as a protest against British colonial rule and increasing Jewish immigration. The rebellion was brutally suppressed, and during this period several villages were bombed, houses demolished, and mass arrests were carried out.
​
1948: Nakba
​
Before the expiration of the British mandate, even before May 14, 1948, Zionist paramilitary units began a military operation to demolish Palestinian towns and villages to expand the borders of the emerging Zionist state. In April 1948, more than 100 Palestinian men, women, and children were killed in the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem. Palestinians experience this as an ongoing process that continues to burden and embitter their daily lives, rather than a one-time event.
​
First Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949)
The First Arab-Israeli War began on May 14, 1948, after the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the declaration of independence of Israel. As a result of the fighting, Israel gained control over larger areas than originally allocated to it under the 1947 Partition Plan, including West Jerusalem. During the battles, about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes.
​
Six-Day War (1967)
During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel seized East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, and brought the entire West Bank under its control. Jewish settlements were established in these areas to solidify its rule.
Munich Olympics (1972)
At the Munich Olympics, 8 members of the Palestinian terrorist group Black September took the Israeli team hostage, killing two athletes on the spot and taking nine more hostage. The group's leader, Luttif Afif, demanded the release of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, and the founders of the Red Army Faction held by West Germans. In a failed rescue attempt carried out by German authorities, all 9 hostages were killed, and the Israeli government launched Operation Wrath of God to track down and kill the conspirators.
Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre (1994)
In 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, a Jewish extremist, Baruch Goldstein, opened fire on Palestinian Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron while they were praying, killing 29 and injuring more than 100 others.
Events of the 2000s
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque, stagnation of the peace process, and Israel's control over the West Bank led to the Second Intifada, resulting in heightened tension and violence on both sides.
Dolphinarium Disco Bombing (2001)
A Hamas suicide bomber killed 21 Israelis, mostly teenagers, in a night club in Tel Aviv.
Passover Massacre (2002)
A Hamas suicide bomber killed 30 Israelis during a Passover meal in Netanya.
Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh (2022)
Shireen Abu Akleh, a prominent Palestinian-American journalist known for her significant work at Al Jazeera where she worked for 25 years, was born on April 3, 1971, and tragically lost her life on May 14, 2022, during an Israeli raid near Jenin. Recent investigations point to nearby IDF unit which fired multiple shots, intentionally ending Shireen's life despite her clearly visible press insignia while she was reporting on the events.
Huwarah (2023)
On February 26, 2023, hundreds of Israeli settlers began violent rampages in Huwarah and other Palestinian villages in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, resulting in one civilian death, over 100 Palestinians injured, and significant property damage. Israeli soldiers were in the area during the incident but did not intervene. The attack was described as a pogrom by an Israeli commander and occurred after a Palestinian armed individual earlier on the same day shot multiple rounds at two Israeli settlers. In the aftermath, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a settler leader, called for Huwarah to be "swept away" by the Israeli army, although he later retracted his remarks after international condemnation.
Settler Attacks on Palestinian Villages (2023)
Israeli security leaders classified a series of settler attacks as nationalist terrorism against Palestinian villages after several attacks occurred within a week, sparking sharp criticism against far-right cabinet ministers.
Deadly Settler Attack (August 5, 2023)
A young Palestinian was fatally injured by a group of Israeli settlers. An attack later described as a terrorist attack by the United States Department of State, expressing "great concern" about escalating violence in the West Bank.
The list is practically endless, the above are just excerpts from a multitude of similar events. Throughout history, embarrassingly many documented cases can be attributed to both sides, highlighting that extremist manifestations do not necessarily reflect majority thinking, although a broader receptive ground can be found in both extremist Zionist and extremist Islamic-minded people, the radicalizable national pain.
Contemporary Palestinian Perspective
For instance, concerning the two-state topic, the contemporary perspective of young Palestinians is important. Doubts have emerged due to previous efforts, as many young Palestinians grew up witnessing peace talks that didn't yield tangible results. This has fostered skepticism about the viability of the two-state solution among rising generations.
Increasingly, young Palestinians are tuning into the idea of a one-state solution, where Palestinians and Israelis live in a single, secular (worldly), democratic state. They argue that due to Israeli settler activity, a viable and contiguous Palestinian state is geographically no longer possible. More and more, the issues of rights, equality, and identity are coming to the forefront instead of statehood.
Many young Palestinians feel that even if a Palestinian state were to come into being, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee rights or effectively put an end to occupation and oppression.
Further Momentum for the Two-State Solution
The two-state solution continues to be widely supported on the international scene. The UN, the European Union, and other major international players continue to support and advocate for this direction. A significant portion of both the Israeli and Palestinian populations, especially the older generations, continue to support the two-state solution. They see it as the best way to ensure national self-determination for both peoples and to address fundamental issues related to Jerusalem, refugees, borders, and security. The question is how much this is in parallel with contemporary Palestinian momentum nowadays.
Practical Considerations
Implementing a one-state solution poses huge challenges, starting with the questions of the nature of the state, deeply rooted fears to identity, and security-related issues alike. Many see the continuous expansion of Israeli settlers in the West Bank areas and East Jerusalem as undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state.
Hamas versus Fatah
Palestinian politics is deeply divided, mainly between Fatah operating in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. This division complicates any unified negotiation approach. The list below shows the main differences.
​
​
​
Ideology
​
Hamas - Islamist
Fatah - Secular
​
Israel Strategy
​
Hamas - Armed resistance
Fatah - Negotiations
​
Objective
​
Hamas - Does not recognize Israel, but would accept a Palestinian state considering the 1967 borders.
Fatah - Recognizes Israel, would establish a state considering the 1967 borders.
​
​
Over the years, Israeli politics has shifted far-right, with some parties questioning the necessity of a Palestinian state or viewing the West Bank as an integral part of Israel. The upcoming years will be crucial for the fate of the two-state solution.
The perspectives of young Palestinians highlight the evolutionary nature of disagreements and underline the necessity of new approaches that address the aspirations and fears of both peoples. While the two-state solution faces significant challenges, all other alternative solutions must also confront the deeply rooted traumatic issues of identity, rights, and security alike. The dialogue shaping the future form of Israel-Palestine relations will undoubtedly continue to evolve and is evolving before our eyes nowadays.
Section 1 - Fundamentals of Warring
Jus ad Bellum (Justice of War)
These criteria determine when it is just to go to war.
Just Causes
War is only permitted in case of real and certain danger.
Legitimate Authority
Only lawfully established public authorities can initiate war.
​
Right Intention
The intention must stem from a just cause, not self-aggrandizement or power grabbing.
​
Probability of Success
Do not engage in a war that has no chance of success.
Last Resort
Every peaceful alternative must be exhausted before parties resort to war.
Proportionality
The expected benefits of initiating war must be proportional to the expected damages or harms.
​
​
​
​
These criteria define how to fight after the onset of war.
​
Discrimination (or Distinction)
Combatants should only target other combatants, non-combatants should not be targeted.
Proportionality
The force used in war must be proportional to the damages that the war aims to prevent or correct.
Prisoners of War and Fair Treatment
Prisoners must be treated respectfully and humanely.
​
Forbidden 'Malum in Se'
Inherently evil acts such as sexual violence, pillaging, torture, interrogations, and genocide are prohibited.
​
​
​
​
​​​
​
This deals with the aftermath of conflict and post-war reconstruction.
​
Proportionality and Transparency
The terms of peace should be made public, and the punishment should be proportional in case of any committed crime.
​
Right Intention
The intention to create a just peace for all affected parties.
​
Distinction
A distinction should be made between leaders responsible for the war and those who are not.
​
Punishment
War crimes must be addressed, and those responsible for them must be held accountable.
Rehabilitation
Efforts must be made to rehabilitate and restore societies after conflict.
Important note
It's important to note that the motives behind attacks by Hamas or similar groups can be complex, driven by a mixture of political, ideological, military, and occasionally civilizational factors. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the general higher level of militarization in Israel and the presence of many former and reserve soldiers among the civilian population may blur the lines between combatants and non-combatants from the attackers' perspective.
It's also important to note that international law clearly distinguishes between combatants and civilians, providing protection for the latter, especially children, the elderly, and the sick. Nothing can therefore excuse the disgraceful and cruel series of attacks committed by Hamas militants on October 7th.
Extreme ideologies often dehumanize or demonize entire populations, leading to indiscriminate violence against civilians. From a jihadist or extremist perspective, the cultural, religious, or national identity of a population may justify violence against them. However, such viewpoints and actions are widely condemned by the international community, are contrary to international law, and indeed revolt the stomach of the average person.
These points perhaps help to understand jihadist, extremist Islamist motivations along with their horrendous consequences, emphatically repeating that this exposition does not seek to excuse them.
Hamas's big mistake is thinking that they can have the militant actions they judge justified accepted by the civilized participants of the international community, using the Palestinian population as puppets for this purpose. Although a more conciliatory tone is present, the cycle of violence appears to be dominated by the militant line, often suppressing the moderate voices of the average population of Gaza.
Jus in Bello (Justice in War)
Jus post Bellum (Justice After War)
Section 2 - Armed Resistance
Attacks against civilians are unacceptable and condemnable under all circumstances. However, international law recognizes the right of occupied peoples to resist. It's important to emphasize that many consider Israel as an occupier and oppressor in Palestinian territories, which is one of the causes of the long-standing conflict. This doesn't excuse any excesses and cruelties committed by either side, but it puts them into context.
​
The following important documents can help analyze and interpret the "bigger picture".
​
UN General Assembly Resolution 2649 (from 1970)
This resolution "affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination, who have the right to self-determination, to recover this right by any available means."
UN General Assembly Resolution 3246 (from 1974)
This resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the people's struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle."
UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (from 1982)
This resolution "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle."
Fourth Geneva Convention (from 1949)
This treaty, to which Israel is a signatory, regulates the protection of civilians in war zones. Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions, establishes fundamental rules from which no deviation is permitted. It's applicable in the event of an international armed conflict and provides a minimum level of protection for those not participating in hostilities.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (from 1967)
This fundamental resolution emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and demands "the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories recently occupied in the conflict."
UN Security Council Resolution 338 (from 1973)
This resolution calls for a ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War and the implementation of Resolution 242.
​
International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Wall (from 2004)
According to the ICJ, the wall built by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to international law. It stated that Israel should cease its construction, dismantle the sections already built, and compensate for the damages caused.
UN Security Council Resolution 478 (from 1980)
This resolution condemns Israel's Basic Law concerning Jerusalem, and reaffirms the Council's position that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which aim to change the character and status of Jerusalem, lack legal validity and severely violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.
These documents provide context and legal basis for a conflict. Although I know that this discussion is already quite long, understanding and comprehending the ongoing tyranny raging since a human age cannot be done with a short, cosmetic text, especially not to see into the centuries-old antecedents in the region.
The UN documents are valuable in international law, yet often lack effective enforcement mechanisms. While the international community vocalizes the rights of Palestinians and urges the end of Israeli occupation, the realization in reality is much more complex. This is why it's of great importance that the reports accurately and balancedly convey the events, which often does not happen in practice.
​
The Middle Eastern conflict, especially the Israeli-Palestinian issue, is extremely complex in reality. To create a fair and balanced picture about it, it's indispensable to include in the thought process the oppression, the occupation, the collective and individual suffering on both sides, and the realities of geopolitical interests as well.
Many paid with their lives or limbs to inform the world about the events while seeking the truth, and the perpetual cycle of violence came with a plethora of innocent civilian victims. Therefore, it's crucial to depict the facts as accurately as possible. In memory of their sacrifices too, it's important to approach the topic informed and thoughtfully, without falling into serious error due to bias.
​
In the UN Security Council, countries with veto power (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) can reject any resolution, even if it enjoys the support of the other member states. If a single veto-holding member state votes against a proposal, it will not be accepted. Due to the exercise of the veto right, the Security Council often cannot act efficiently and quickly in certain crises, especially if it affects the geopolitical interests of any permanent member state. So, although the resolutions of the Security Council are binding, the veto right often may limit the Council's efficiency.
​
If a resolution is adopted in the Council (i.e., there is no veto), mechanisms guarantee its implementation. But due to the exercise of the veto right, many resolutions do not come into existence, which under other circumstances perhaps would have been accepted.
Section 3 - Collective Punishment
An important segment of the debate is collective punishment, as a war crime. In the context of armed conflict, collective punishment means that a group is punished for the actions of one or more members of the group. International law prohibits this, as it contradicts the principle that individuals can only be held accountable for their own actions.
The prohibition of collective punishment is encoded in several international documents.
Including:
The Hague Regulations (from 1907)
The 50th article of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention, states: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."
The Fourth Geneva Convention (from 1949)
This convention discusses the protection of civilians during wartime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation are prohibited."
The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (from 1977)
This Protocol reinforces the protection of civilians in international armed conflicts. Article 75, (2), (d) prohibits collective punishments alongside other prohibitions related to persons in the power of an adverse party.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (from 1998)
Although the Rome Statute does not expressly label "collective punishment" as a war crime, actions characterizable as collective punishment often fall under other listed crimes, such as according to (8,2,a, fourth article) "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity," or (8, 2, b, first article) "intentional attacks directed against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities."
Therefore, the execution of collective punishment is considered a war crime under international law. This means that individuals ordering or executing such actions can be held criminally accountable. Historically, various international courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have dealt with violations of international humanitarian law, including cases where collective punishment may have been applied.
Section 4 - Reprimands
Israel has been subjected to numerous resolutions by various UN organizations since its establishment in 1948, in addition to the ones previously mentioned. The following list is not exhaustive, but provides an overview of key condemning resolutions against Israel. Most resolutions come from the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.
​
UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (from 1975)
Determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." (Note: This resolution was revoked in 1991 by UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86.)
​
UN Security Council Resolution 446 (from 1979)
Determined that Israeli settlements in Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 "have no legal validity" and pose a serious obstacle to achieving comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 452 (from 1979)
Called upon Israel to cease the building of settlements in the occupied territories.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 465 (from 1980)
Reaffirmed that Israeli settlements are a "flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
​
UN Security Council Resolution 471 (from 1980)
Condemned the assassination attempts against the mayors of Nablus, Ramallah, and al-Bireh and called upon Israel to apprehend the perpetrators.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 478 (from 1980)
Strongly condemned Israel for proclaiming Jerusalem as its capital, following the Israeli Knesset's adoption of the Jerusalem Law.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 497 (from 1981)
Declared null and void Israel’s decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction, and administration on the Syrian Golan Heights.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 904 (from 1994)
Condemned the massacre committed by an Israeli settler in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and demanded measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 1402 (from 2002)
Called upon Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities it had reoccupied during the Second Intifada.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 1435 (from 2002)
Demanded that Israel withdraw to positions held before September 2000 during the Second Intifada.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (from 2009)
Demanded an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza war and for Israel to fully open border crossings to allow aid to flow.
​
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (from 2016)
Stated that Israeli settlements' establishment in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant - in other words, blatant - violation of international law.
​
​
This list summarizes some major resolutions. Numerous other resolutions concerning Israel have been adopted over the years by various UN bodies.
​
The UN Security Council had several instances where resolutions regarding Hamas were proposed or discussed.
​
​
​
Such are the following
​
​
A resolution proposal submitted by Brazil, which originally condemned the disgusting terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel, as well as violence against civilians, and demanded a humanitarian ceasefire for aid deliveries to Gaza. The discussion of the resolution text continued, indicating that there was some sort of debate or deliberation within the UN Security Council regarding Hamas and its activities.
​
A UN General Assembly resolution proposed by the United States condemned the activities of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, but was not adopted at the UN headquarters in New York.
​
A case where the EU ambassador to the UN mentioned a resolution which, if adopted, would have been the first General Assembly vote condemning Hamas.
​
A Russian resolution proposal that condemned violence and terrorism against civilians but did not mention Hamas, was rejected in the UN Security Council. The resolution was submitted in response to an attack described as the worst Jewish massacre since the World War II Nazi Holocaust, referring to a severe event linked to Hamas, yet the resolution did not specifically deal with Hamas.
​
​
​
These cases indicate that the UN Security Council had discussions and resolution proposals regarding Hamas, reflecting the complex and nuanced international attitude towards the group and its activities. While some resolutions directly condemned Hamas, others avoided the issue or were not adopted, highlighting the geopolitical intricacies within the UN Security Council.
Section 5 - Zionism
Given its appearance in resolutions and its fundamental influence on the dynamics of events, it's important to discuss Zionism.
​
Zionism is a complex ideology with numerous aspects and interpretations. Historically, Zionism is a national movement aiming for the self-determination of the Jewish people and the establishment of an independent Jewish state in the historical territory of Israel, which is purportedly designated by God for the Jews.
Some key considerations
Cultural Zionism:
Zionism has cultural dimensions focused on the preservation and development of Jewish culture, traditions, and language. This aspect is difficult to interpret as racism.
Political Zionism:
Political Zionism focuses on the establishment and maintenance of the Israeli state. Critics often oppose its practical implementation, especially concerning the rights and demands of Palestinians. Nowadays, extreme manifestations along far-right characteristics operate within the Israeli state machinery.
​
Definition of Racism:
Racism generally encompasses views, prejudices, or practices that regard a particular race or ethnic group as inferior or less valuable. To interpret Zionism as racism, it's necessary to ascertain whether it fundamentally operates on these principles.
​
Some critics argue that policies and practices of the Israeli government and certain Zionist groups oppress Palestinians, interpreting this as racism. However, others believe that Zionism is based not on Jewish superiority, but on ensuring the safety and self-determination rights of the Jewish people.
​
UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which in 1975 condemned Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination, sparked much debate and opposition internationally. Many viewed the resolution as stemming from political motivations and not an objective assessment, with opposition to the resolution growing over the years.
Towards the end of the Cold War, more countries became critical of the resolution. The changing geopolitical environment, pressure from the United States and other Western countries, as well as the hope of resuming Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, all contributed to the review of the resolution. In 1991, the UN General Assembly with Resolution 46/86 revoked Resolution 3379.
​
The revocation implied that Zionism was no longer considered a form of racism by the UN, reflecting the changing attitudes of the international community regarding the Israeli-Palestinian standoff and the question of Zionism. Various countries support Israel for different reasons, and these reasons do not always directly relate to Israel's internal or external policies.
Some possible factors behind International support
​
​
Strategic Partnership:
Israel has strong military and intelligence capabilities, and serves as a strategic partner for many countries in the Middle East. The United States, for example, has developed deeply embedded security and intelligence cooperation relationships with Israel.
​
Economic Interests:
Israel has developed a dynamic technology and economic sector, making trade and investment relations attractive for other countries.
​
Cultural and Religious Ties:
Israel has strong diaspora communities around the world, especially in the United States and Europe. These communities maintain political and cultural relations with Israel. Additionally, Israel serves as a holy site for the three major religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's important to note here that Judaism is not synonymous with Zionism, and anti-Zionism is not equal to antisemitism, also known as Jew-hatred, since not every Jew is a Zionist and not every Zionist is a Jew.
​
Geopolitical Contradictions:
The Israeli-Palestinian situation plays a role in the foreign policy decisions of many countries. Certain countries support Israel to counterbalance other states or groups in the region.
​
Diplomatic Strategy:
Some countries have established bilateral relations with both Israel and the Palestinians in order to play a mediating role in peace negotiations.
​
Domestic Politics:
In many countries, there are domestic political groups that strongly support or oppose Israel's policies, and these groups can influence the foreign policy decisions of their country. It's important that while many countries support Israel for various reasons, it doesn't mean that every supportive country accepts or overlooks every action or decision of the Israeli government. Many supportive states have criticized Israel on certain issues, such as settler policy or regular excesses by security forces, as well as the sometimes absurd actions of the justice system, overwhelmingly against Palestinians who are held for indefinite periods without court decisions, viewed by many as hostages.
​
Anglo-Saxon Countries and Israeli Relations:
The complex interplay of geopolitical interests and strategic partnerships has played a role in the relations of Anglo-Saxon countries, especially the United States, with Israel. The efficiency of Israeli intelligence and the country's strategic position in the Middle East were important factors in this relationship.
Section 6 - A Backstory From The Past And The Methods of Historical Distortions
The USS Liberty Incident (1967)
The USS Liberty incident, which occurred in 1967, was a tragic and disputed event in Israeli and American relations. The USS Liberty was an American intelligence spy ship, which was attacked by Israeli defense forces in several waves during the Six-Day War.
In the attack, 34 American soldiers died, and more than one hundred seventy were injured. Israel claimed that the attack was accidental, and later paid compensation to the victims' families and the United States for the destroyed technology. Since then, evidence has emerged suggesting that the attack was deliberate, despite it being known that the attack was against an American ship.
​
According to survivors' recollections, during the first wave of the attack a smaller flag was replaced with a larger one when the opportunity arose amidst the hail of bullets, rockets, and napalm. The survivors are bound by secrecy regarding the circumstances of their decorations. Typically, such decorations are presented by the president at the White House, but in the case of the USS Liberty, it took place in one of the navy's courtyards, excluding the public.
​
Although the incident caused a serious diplomatic crisis between the two countries, the relationship between the United States and Israel did not deteriorate permanently. In the context of the Cold War and against the backdrop of Soviet support for Arab countries, the United States continued to regard Israel as a strategic partner.
Over the years, the military, intelligence, and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries deepened. Geopolitical interests, shared values, and intertwined strategic objectives all contributed to the continued support of Israel by the United States and other Western countries, despite events that significantly strained the relationship between the two countries.
​
In light of the above lengthy analysis, the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and the recent atrocities shed light on the complex fabric of indigeneity, colonization, and territorial disputes. The wave of violence in 2023 resulted in significant losses on both sides. Civilians, often caught in the crossfire, continue to bear the brunt of the violence.
Neither of the opposing sides truly considers the necessary measures to prevent civilian casualties, thereby exacerbating the long-term crisis and deepening the divide and hatred between communities.
​
Additionally, the escalating conflict resulted in increased settler attacks, evicting hundreds of Palestinians, and highlighting the aspects of colonial efforts. The ongoing construction of settlements in Israeli-occupied West Bank embodies the concept of settler colonization, which remains a central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict although mainstream media focuses less on this part.
​
On the other hand, Israel suffered 54 Palestinian terrorist attacks in 2021, marking an increase compared to the previous year, and serving as a bitter reminder of the cycle of violence prevailing in the region. The hostility and fear caused by such attacks further deepen the divide between Israelis and Palestinians, making a peaceful resolution increasingly difficult, whereas one would expect the opposite in an advanced, civilized world.
​
The reaction of the international community, including the condemning statements of the UN and other bodies, as well as humanitarian consequences, such as restrictions on Palestinian access to healthcare, limited calorie allowances regarding food supplies, further complicate the situation.
​
In summary, the recent atrocities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serve gravely and convincingly as a backdrop to the debate on indigeneity and colonization. The tense situation between Israelis and Palestinians continues to be a vivid example that indigeneity and colonization are not merely academic or theoretical constructs, but have concrete, often devastating effects on the individuals and communities involved in territorial disputes.
​
In the modern digital age, social media has become the battlefield for ideological discourses, among which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occupies a prominent place. A recurring narrative, often propagated by pro-Israeli factions, supports Zionist ideology as the legitimate foundation of the state of Israel.
​
The aim of this conclusion is to analyze the common arguments put forward by Zionist supporters, revealing a pattern of obfuscation and historical misinterpretation, which seems to conceal the grim reality.
Terminology of Obfuscation examining the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation
​
Applying the terminology of obfuscation in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, we can demonstrate how certain groups or entities can hide or distort information in order to promote certain narratives or political objectives.
​
On social media and other online platforms, Zionist or pro-Israeli groups may hide or downplay violence against Palestinian civilians or violations of international law to portray the state of Israel in a better light. Conversely, pro-Palestinian groups may also hide or overlook certain information to promote their own narrative.
​
The distortion of narratives or events can change the perception and understanding of the events depending on ideological or political affiliations. For example, Zionist groups may argue that settlers' activities are legitimate defensive measures, while pro-Palestinian groups regard them as unjust colonial efforts.
​
In online discourse, Zionist or pro-Israeli groups may bring up complex legal or historical arguments to complicate the simple interpretation of the conflict, thereby diverting attention from the fundamental factors of Palestinian oppression.
Parties involved may create "encrypted" arguments or narratives that are only interpretable in certain contexts or with prior knowledge, thus complicating objective analysis and understanding.
​
Through this interpretation, Zionist and pro-Palestinian groups may employ obfuscation tactics to advance their own ideological and political objectives in the Israel-Palestine situation, while distorting or hiding the facts and contexts that could aid in a more comprehensive and objective understanding of the hostility.
​
A prominent argument posits that historical oppression suffered by Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, somehow legitimizes the colonization of Palestine. This stance collapses upon examination, considering that Palestinians had nothing to do with centuries of European antisemitism. Drawing a parallel, it's like claiming that Indigenous Australians are entitled to attack Peru in retribution for atrocities committed by Britain and Australia. The absurdity is clear; historical oppression does not authorize the oppressed to oppress others.
​
Furthermore, it's often argued that a Jewish state in Europe, possibly in Germany, could have served as a more justifiable reparation for the Holocaust. However, Zionists were already propagating the colonization of Palestine and planning the expulsion of its non-Jewish population well before the Holocaust. This indicates opportunism in leveraging a horrific tragedy to advance an existing colonial agenda.
​
Extending this argument leads to the examination of early alliances formed by Zionists, some of whom were European antisemites, who saw the Jewish migration to Palestine as a convenient way to rid their own nation of its Jewish population. This contradictory alliance underscores the opportunistic nature of the Zionist colonial enterprise.
​
Venturing into the comparison of Liberia's nineteenth-century colonization. White Americans, wanting to rid themselves of the growing population of freed black slaves, devised a plan to send them to certain parts of West Africa to colonize. This colonization resulted in a long-standing oppressive regime by Americo-Liberians over the indigenous population, demonstrating that oppression does not justify further oppression, regardless of historical context.
​
Another argument often brought up in online discussions relates to the presence of about 10,000 Palestinian Jews in Palestine before the onset of Zionist colonization. This fact is brought up to justify mass migration and subsequent colonization, ignoring that the presence of a smaller religious or ethnic group does not grant carte blanche to the world’s same religious or ethnic groups to colonize the same territory.
​
The exploration of these arguments reveals a pattern of misleading historical narratives and the blurring of indigeneity principles. It appears that justifications for Zionist colonization often rest on shaky historical interpretations, religious claims, or misinterpretation of ongoing colonial oppression.
Section 7 - The Cycle of Power And Violence - Some Thoughts For Closing Chord
We live in an era dominated by viral videos and instant news. We are continually confronted with power dynamic scenes unfolding at various points in the world. In these stories, an old-new narrative regularly emerges: the perpetual bloodshed in the matter of Israel-Palestine.
​
This never-ending dance of violence, where a rocket shot in the Middle East can spiral into an air raid, breeds further hostility, vengeance, and resistance. The media and the online space's spotlight often cast long shadows that distort the truth and reshape stories, shaping and influencing opinion.
​
In the tragic, violent carousel of the Israeli-Palestinian status quo, defensive moves or retaliatory actions sometimes obscure the original provocative antecedents. Thus, while the media is awash with, and we see and hear these usually portrayed as unprovoked actions, this, coupled with international narrative and unwavering support, led by the United States, often paves the way for endless slaughter, decimating the Palestinian population.
Ignoring systemic oppression, such as the careful calorie count allowances for the Gaza Strip intended to regulate the population's nutrition, and other outrageous methods like damaging water tanks stored on the roofs of Palestinian houses, which settlers shoot at with live ammunition, rendering basic necessities fulfillment impossible or significantly difficult.
The "Alienation" Game: The Antechamber of Violence
Nothing facilitates aggression towards others more than when the target is perceived or portrayed as "less." This denial of humanity serves as a psychological shield, enabling violence without guilt, or may trigger voluntary aggression from people who were not explicitly asked to act violently, but as governmental and directed communication dehumanizing a group of people identified as targets might prompt them to do so.A great example is the recently publicized announcement by Yoav Gallant about the siege of Gaza.
Let’s not forget how Zionist extremists and settlers treat their African-origin brethren or recently their Christian believer compatriots, emphasizing the land for Jews only theory. Also, remember not every Zionist is Jewish and not every Jew is a Zionist, and anti-Zionism is not synonymous with antisemitism which further nuances the complexity of the prevailing situation.
Invisible Threads: The Puppets of Systemic Problems.
​
Behind these confrontations lie complex, intertwined systemic problems. Whether it's the legacy of the United States' racist past manifesting in today's policing practices, or post-Middle Eastern war land grabs and settler settlements, these threads influence the current narrative.
Resounding Silence: The Lack of Accountability.
​
Silence can be as telling as noise. The mild consequences or lack of accountability following overt displays of power showcase a system interwoven with invisible bonds and hidden traits. An example is the globally present "Thin Blue Line" or elsewhere Blue Thin Line among police forces, where law enforcement colleagues do not testify against each other during criminal investigations, and especially do not report each other otherwise the individual faces the vilest treatment.
This rarely culminates in violence, more often in existential incapacitation of the individual or voluntary reassignment to another unit. Of course, the news follows, so sooner or later the majority find themselves outside the corps one way or another.
Despite some police and union leaders trying to cast this movement in a positive light, to a critical and informed individual, the movement appears more gang-like. The patches placed on uniforms, generally dark-toned, depicting a thin blue line, uniform accessories, and in severe cases body tattoos are signs of gang marking.
Those who participate in this clique more frequently find themselves involved in police excessive force, torture, and even life-extinguishing incidents, where the applied violence is not necessarily called for or proportional, but since the chance of getting caught is small due to the lack of available witnesses, this nature of abuse is self-reinforcing and endless, most often ending only with unavoidable accountability. Moreover, force is often applied with the intention that it elicits natural reflex opposition – the instinctive desire to escape from the grasp of unjust violence and dominance, see the vilely provoked physical opposition – to provide legal grounds for the fundamentally unjust initiated and applied violence.
It's particularly irritating when, for example, in the USA such organized, on-duty criminal police groups enriching themselves from crime are busted. Their own gang tattoos within the police units and investigative physical evidence make it obvious what for decades were treated only as hearsay, rumors, or malicious propaganda.
Mentioning similarities is only theoretical, and I do not wish to underline the matches, considering the contextual warnings regarding individual historical, political, and social circumstances.
However, anyone with a shred of empathic readiness can obviously draw a parallel based on decades of unexecuted international resolutions, war crime-suspected events, and the right-wing force plays, excesses, and their impunity by the Israeli government to the above example.
​
Kaleidoscope Motives
​
Not everything is as it appears. Be it personal prejudices, political agendas, genuine security concerns, or power plays, solitary or isolated fanatic motives - the reasons are layered and often intertwined, and hold unpredictable twists for the future.
Epilogue
​
One can only hope that the increasing number of human casualties will one day force the warring parties towards a peaceful solution, paving the way towards healing, reconciliation, forgiveness, because as impossible and painful as it sounds, no other way is feasible. I stand on the side of innocent victims.
Prepared by: Zsolt 'Beatinspector'Janossy .
Assistant: Chat GPT-4