The Israeli-Palestinian arena today
Who leads the Palestinian people?
Since 1974, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) has been recognised by the Arab League as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO held observer status – with the name ‘Palestine’ – at the United Nations General Assembly until 2012 when it was upgraded to the status of a non-member state. A secular Arab nationalist movement called Fatah has taken the dominant role in the PLO since 1969. Yasser Arafat led Fatah until his death in 2004. As part of the Oslo Accords, signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993, the PLO established the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the transitional body that would run Palestinian affairs in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank until a final Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The PA is supposed to function with an elected president and a parliament, called the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Arafat, the first president of the PA, ran the institution in an autocratic manner, without regular elections or proper accountability and his ruling Fatah party became associated with corruption and mismanagement. Arafat also attracted widespread international criticism for failing to stop terrorism against Israel during the Second Intifada. In 2003, Arafat responded to international demands by appointing a prime minister, although the position had limited authority.
After Arafat’s death in 2004, Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was elected as the president of the PA. In February 2006, elections for the PLC produced an unexpected victory for Hamas – an armed, radical Islamist Palestinian faction. They formed a government with Ismail Haniyeh as Prime Minister. The international community largely refused to have contact with Hamas because of its refusal to meet the conditions set by the Quartet (the US, EU, Russia and UN) to renounce violence, recognise Israel and to accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The West Bank and Gaza Strip became marred by increasingly bloody infighting between Fatah and Hamas. In March 2007, Fatah and Hamas attempted to form a unity government. This collapsed in June 2007, after Hamas carried out a violent coup against its Fatah rivals in the Gaza Strip. PA President Mahmoud Abbas then dismissed the Hamas-led government and appointed an administration under his own leadership in the West Bank. This administration remains in control of the West Bank, whilst Hamas remains in control of the Gaza Strip. Repeated attempts to broker an agreement between Hamas and Fatah to reunite the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under a single authority and hold new elections have failed.
What is Hamas and why is it not involved in the peace process?
Hamas is a radical Islamist organisation that emerged from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood during the early stages of the First Intifada. Its charter was issued in 1988, setting out the goals and vision of the organisation. It includes a firm and explicit rejection of the very idea of a peace process, which would involve the surrender of ‘Islamic land’ and the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The central aim of Hamas is to establish an Islamic state in all the territory defined as ‘Palestine’ (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River) through armed struggle. The Hamas charter is a fiercely antisemitic document, which blames Jews for all kinds of evils, including the First and Second World Wars.
Hamas is also a leading perpetrator of terrorist attacks against Israel. It carried out a chain of suicide bombings attacks against Israel from early 1993 to late 2006, causing the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas has continued its campaign of terror, along with other armed groups, by firing thousands of rockets and mortar shells at Israeli towns close to the Gaza border.
Hamas’s military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has been proscribed under the UK law since February 2001. The EU and US have designated the organisation in its entirety as a terrorist group. Hamas was responsible for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was taken from inside Israel in a cross-border raid in June 2006. Shalit was held for more than five years, until he was released on 18 October 2011, in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners.
The Quartet – the EU, US, Russia and the UN – demand that Hamas renounces violence, acknowledges Israel’s right to exist and recognises previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas, however, has refused these demands. These are not arbitrary principles. They are equivalent to the commitments made by the PLO at the beginning of the Oslo Process in the 1990s, and are the logical premise for moving towards a peaceful two-state solution. The Israeli government has repeatedly and explicitly recognised the national rights of the Palestinian people and their right to their own sovereign state. Hamas is expected to equally recognise Israel’s right to exist.
Hamas leaders have occasionally talked of establishing a ‘Hudna’ (temporary ceasefire) with Israel. However, Hamas have never given any sign that they are ready to accommodate the existence of Israel as part of a permanent solution to the conflict.
Rocket fire from Hamas and other armed groups was reduced considerably after Operation Cast Lead, a three week Israeli military operation which began at the end of December 2008. A resurgence of rocket fire in 2012 led to another Israeli military operation, Operation Pillar of Defence, since which rocket fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel has largely subsided. As a result, the most immediate victims of Hamas rule are the people of Gaza themselves. This is both because of the repressive nature of Hamas rule, where many basic freedoms are denied, and because of Hamas’s tight grip on economic and commercial activity. The movement controls a network of tunnels between the Gaza Strip and northern Sinai, which brings through weapons and goods in defiance of Egypt’s attempts to control the border. In addition, since Hamas took sole control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, the movement has significantly expanded its security forces to maintain its rule. In 2006, the movement possessed a force of between 5,000 to 6,000 fighters. Today, Hamas maintains a security force in excess of 25,000 fighters. This is in addition to a further 10,000 members of the Qassam Brigades, which is Hamas’s own military branch.
Polls conducted in the Palestinian territories indicate that Hamas lags significantly behind Fatah in terms of electoral support. However Hamas, determined to maintain its grip on the Gaza Strip, has repressed any significant opposition and has shown no serious interest in new elections.
How has Israel sought peace with the Palestinians?
After his re-election in 2015, Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed his commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. Every Israeli Prime Minister since Ehud Barak in 1999 has been committed to the principle of resolving the conflict based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Since the 1990s Israel has engaged in direct negotiations with the Palestinians to seek a resolution to the conflict. The first agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were negotiated secretly in Oslo. The first of the Accords was signed on the White House lawn on 14 September 1993, beginning the Oslo process and establishing the framework of all subsequent talks between the two sides.
The accords set out the terms for a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (PA). The core issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were deferred to a permanent status accord to be negotiated at a later date. There have since been several unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a final status agreement.
The latest attempt began on 29 July 2013, after intense diplomacy by US Secretary of State John Kerry. As a prelude to the talks, Israel agreed to release in four batches 104 Palestinian’s serving long sentences for terror attacks. During the course of the subsequent negotiations, Israel accepted, with reservations, a US-drafted framework document setting out how gaps could be closed on the core issues including borders, security, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees and mutual recognition. When PA President Mahmoud Abbas was presented with the guidelines in a meeting with President Obama in March 2014 he failed to respond.
The fourth and final batch of Palestinian prisoners was scheduled for release in April 2014, shortly before the negotiation deadline. Israel sought to extend peace negotiations for a further nine months before releasing these prisoners. In response to the delayed release, the Palestinian Authority unilaterally signed up to join 15 international treaties and conventions, in violation of previous understandings. Shortly after, the PA also agreed to establish a joint administration with Hamas, effectively ending the peace talks with Israel.
This followed a series of attempts to advance towards a two state solution. The first major attempt to negotiate a final status agreement took place at Camp David in the summer of 2000, and led to Israel accepting the creation of a Palestinian state in most of Gaza and the West Bank and shared sovereignty in Jerusalem. However, bridging proposals put forward by US president Bill Clinton in December 2000 were rejected by the Palestinian side.
In April 2003, Israel agreed to the principles of the ‘Roadmap’ peace plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two state solution. Subsequently, then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon initiated an historic plan to withdraw Israel’s settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank. The ‘Disengagement Plan’was an extremely difficult and divisive step within Israel. It was nevertheless implemented in August 2005 and received widespread international support. It reflected a strong desire within Israel to move towards a two-state reality, even in the absence of an agreed solution with the Palestinians. However, the rise to power of Hamas in Gaza in the wake of Israel’s withdrawal undermined Israeli confidence in withdrawing unilaterally from territory in the West Bank.
After Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the Hamas government in June 2007, Israel reopened negotiations with the PA. At the end of these negotiations, in September 2008, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed creating a Palestinian state in the equivalent of 100% of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, allowing for land swaps to connect large settlements near the border to Israel and for the Palestinians to have a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas never responded to the proposal.
Consistent polling shows that a solid majority of the Israeli public accept the creation of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as part of a peace deal. However, factors such as the internal division within the Palestinian leadership, the threat of Palestinian extremism, Palestinian preconditions to direct talks, and Palestinian unilateral initiatives at the UN, have undermined Israeli public confidence about whether an agreement can be reached.
Why does Israel believe the two-state solution is the best way to achieve peace?
Every Israeli government since 2000 has publicly committed Israel to the two-state solution as the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This solution, as defined by the Clinton parameters in December 2000, is a solution that results in, ‘the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.’ Since 2000 the two-state model has been accepted internationally and endorsed by UN Security Council resolutions.
The principle of the two-state solution is that a Palestinian state will be created within the territory of Gaza and the West Bank, and will exist alongside and at peace with Israel. Repeated polls indicate that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians accept this idea, though it will involve difficult compromises on both sides. For Israel it means giving up control of territory in the West Bank that is of great historic, cultural and strategic importance for the Jewish people. For Palestinians it means accepting that the solution for Palestinian refugees does not lie in returning to Israel but in returning to a new Palestinian state.
However, the alternatives are not acceptable to most Israelis and Palestinians. Most Israelis consider having a democratic state with a Jewish majority to be more important than holding on to the West Bank. Under the status quo, Palestinians that live under Israeli control in the West Bank do not have the rights of citizenship. Many Israelis fear that as the population of Arabs in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank begins to overtake the population of Jews, the democratic legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state will be undermined. Furthermore, the conflict is a costly burden on Israeli society, which most Israelis would like to see confined to history. For this reason they see the creation of a Palestinian state, which will secure the rights of Palestinian Arabs, as being in Israel’s interest, as long as it comes with sufficient security guarantees. The alternative, of a single bi-national state, is not acceptable to most Jews, who want the character of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people to be secured.
What are the main issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?
Borders
The PLO claims the West Bank and the Gaza Strip within pre-1967 borders for their state. Israel has accepted in principle the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel but is not willing to return to those borders, which it considers military indefensible.
There is a broad consensus in Israel that the larger settlement blocs around Jerusalem, and on key strategic points protecting Israel’s narrow coastal plain, should remain part of Israel. The Clinton Parameters in 2000 accepted this principle and suggested some form of land swap, whereby the new Palestinian state would receive other territory from Israel in return for the settlement blocs. The Palestinians also want territory within Israel to build a transport link that connects Gaza and the West Bank, and this could form part of an exchange deal. In 2008, under the Annapolis process, Israel and the Palestinian Authority conducted negotiations along these lines, though there were gaps between the sides on how much land would be exchanged.
Security
Israel’s recent experience of withdrawing from territory in the hope that it will bring peace has been negative. After Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, and from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel was subsequently attacked from both locations, in particular by rockets. Any deal to bring about Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will have to address Israel’s legitimate security fears. Israel will not be willing to allow the establishment of a military force in the West Bank or Gaza that could threaten Israel, and expects a future Palestinian state to be demilitarised. It will further expect a future Palestinian state to act decisively to prevent attacks on Israel originating from within its territory. Israel will also want to retain a military presence in the Jordan Valley after the creation of a Palestinian state to prevent arms smuggling into the West Bank. The Palestinians are opposed to an Israeli military presence, and have proposed a third party international presence instead.
Refugees
The Palestinians claim the right of return for the descendants of refugees from the 1948 war to return to Israel. Israel does not believe it is responsible for resettling the refugees, believing their plight to be the responsibility of the Arab states that rejected the 1947 Partition Plan, started the war, and then refused to resettle the refugees created by that war in their own territory. In any case, no Israeli government will accept a solution that would allow millions of Palestinians to settle in Israel. This would effectively spell the end of the Jewish majority and the viability of Israel as a democratic Jewish state. In 2000 the Clinton Parameters proposed that most of the refugees be resettled either in the new Palestinian state, in their country of residence, or in a third country. This is the principle of two-states for two peoples.
Jerusalem
Both Israelis and Palestinians have very strong cultural, religious, historical and political attachments to Jerusalem and both claim it to be their capital. Particularly sensitive are the Old City and its religious sites. If Palestinian demands to return to pre-1967 borders were taken literally, it would result in the re-division of Jerusalem and the loss of Israeli sovereignty over the Old City, which is something that most Israelis would not be willing to contemplate. The Clinton Parameters proposed a solution whereby Arab neighbourhoods would come under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish neighbourhoods would stay under Israeli sovereignty. Previous negotiations have also proposed a special regime for the Old City.
Other Issues
There are a host of other issues that will need to be resolved in order to make the two-state solution a functioning reality. These include water use and management, the passage regime between a future Palestinian state and its neighbours, Israeli-Palestinian economic, trade and legal relations, infrastructure, the fate of Gaza (for as long as it is under Hamas control), and the process of transition to Palestinian statehood. Previous negotiation efforts have produced progress on some of these issues.
Water is a particularly sensitive issue. The region has limited water resources and Israel currently depends on the West Bank for part of its water supply. Any peace deal will have to address both the allocation and management of water from the Jordan River and the underground aquifers in the West Bank. In 2006, Israel began operating the largest desalination plant of its kind in the world on its Mediterranean coast and is building several more to address its water needs. This may make a solution to the question of water easier to address in future negotiations.
How can the issue of settlements be resolved?
Israel has long legacy of accepting territorial compromise as the way to solve its disputes in the region. The Jewish community of British Mandate Palestine accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and Israel accepted the land for peace formula set out in UN Security Council Resolution 242. Israel’s position today is that the future borders should be the subject of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most Israelis expect that the most populous settlements, which sit on about 5% of the West Bank, will stay part of Israel.
The Clinton Proposals, which followed the Camp David peace talks of 2000, proposed a deal whereby Israel would keep the larger and most populous settlement blocs which it considers vital for its security, and would transfer other territory from Israeli to Palestinian sovereignty in return. This principle of a land swap was also accepted in the unofficial 2003 Geneva Accords, which were negotiated by Israeli and Palestinian peace campaigners. It was also the basis of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority during the Annapolis process over the course of 2008.
This would still likely mean Israel would have to withdraw from some more isolated settlements. Israel set a precedent for evacuating settlements in return for peace when it withdrew from the settlements that were built in the Sinai Peninsula after the Six Day War. This came as part of the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in which the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egyptian hands. In the summer of 2005, Israel unilaterally evacuated all of its settlements in the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank.
What is the status of the West Bank?
According to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the West Bank was supposed to become part of a Palestinian Arab state but in 1948 it was seized by Jordan and subsequently annexed. Israel captured the West Bank, along with East Jerusalem, from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.
Israel extended its sovereignty over East Jerusalem but not to the West Bank, which it considers disputed territory, the fate of which should be determined in negotiations. In the absence of a peace agreement, Israelis established settlements in the West Bank, which holds both great historical and religious significance for Jews, as well as strategic importance. Today there are close to 350,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and approximately 2.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The Oslo process that began in 1993 resulted in the creation of Palestinian self-rule over Palestinian population centres in the West Bank. The West Bank is now divided into three types of administration. Seventeen per cent is designated as Area A, under Palestinian administrative and security control. Twenty-four per cent is Area B, which is under Palestinian civilian administration and Israeli security control. The remainder is Area C, which is under full Israeli control. Ninety-six per cent of Palestinians live under Palestinian Authority administration in areas A and B. There is day-to-day coordination between the Israeli military authorities and the Palestinian Authority on the administration of the West Bank.
Why are there Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank?
Prior to the threat of suicide bombings and other Palestinian terrorist attacks inside Israel, Israelis and Palestinians traveled relatively freely between the West Bank and Israel. Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement came in response to terrorist attacks that occurred initially after the signing of the Oslo Accords, but more significantly after the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. The restrictions also prevent Israelis from entering Palestinian towns and cities. Restrictions on movement within the West Bank have been reduced considerably since the end of the Second Intifada. Nonetheless, Israeli checkpoints between the West Bank and Israel, and within the West Bank, continue to be part of Israel’s defensive measures against the threat of violent attacks.
Checkpoints, which prevent the movement of people and goods within the West Bank and between the West Bank and Israel, are a source of great frustration for ordinary Palestinians. They are a barrier to Palestinian economic development. Israel recognises this problem, and the need to provide economic opportunities that draw people away from terrorism. Israel has therefore worked with the Quartet envoy, Tony Blair, to reduce the number of checkpoints and limit their effect on the daily lives of the Palestinian people.
As a result of the improved performance of Palestinian security forces in recent years, and a reduction in Palestinian violence emanating from the West Bank, Israeli restrictions on movement and access have been considerably reduced. A report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published in June 2010 noted that as a result of changes in 2008 and 2009, movement between Palestinian population centres was much improved. It stated that ‘large segments of the Palestinian population enjoy better access to services, places of work and markets.’
Nevertheless, Palestinian terrorist groups in the West Bank continue to plan and execute attacks against Israelis. This creates a difficult balance between the need to promote Palestinian development, and the need to maintain security for Israel.
What is the security barrier and why is it there?
After the failure of negotiations at Camp David in 2000, the Second Intifada broke out and brought with it a wave of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks to Israel. Whilst Israel has experienced terrorism throughout its history, it had never been so intense. In 2002, a fatal suicide bombing was carried out in Israel nearly every two weeks. The attackers invariably came from the West Bank. In response, Israel decided to build a security barrier in order to stop terrorists from entering Israel from the West Bank. This contributed to a dramatic reduction in successful terrorist attacks inside Israel. All but five per cent of the barrier is an electronically monitored fence and the rest is a wall.
The purpose of the security barrier is to prevent attacks on Israeli citizens. Whilst the final border between Israel and the Palestinians has to be resolved in negotiations, the route of the security barrier is determined by the need to save Israeli lives by preventing Palestinian terrorists from reaching Israeli towns and cities. In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court made a landmark ruling, which concluded the fence was legal, on the strict grounds that its purpose was to protect lives. The court also determined that the route should not cause disproportionate harm to the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank. On the basis of this ruling, the route of the fence was changed in many places to minimise the impact on Palestinian life. The revised route closely follows the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line) in many places and includes less than 10 per cent of the West Bank on the Israeli side.
Palestinians living in the West Bank are able to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court against the route of the fence where it causes disruption to their lives, and have successfully done so in some cases. Attempts are made to minimise disruption caused by the fence, for example by building agricultural gates that allow Palestinian farmers to access their land.
What is being done to promote Palestinian economic, security and political development?
The international community works intensely to promote Palestinian economic, security and political development. Since the split between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in 2007, the principal focus of international efforts has been to work with moderate Palestinians in the West Bank. The US has led a mission to train and equip Palestinian security forces, while the EU has developed programmes to support Palestinian civil policing. Israel has cooperated with these programmes by allowing Palestinian cadets to travel to Jordan for training and permitting them to bring equipment and weapons into the West Bank.
The success of these missions has brought far greater security and calm to the Palestinian population in the West Bank. As a result, Israeli forces have progressively withdrawn from Palestinian population centres and removed many roadblocks and checkpoints. In September 2009, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that since April 2008, ‘access relaxation measures have resulted in a significant reduction in travel time between major cities, as well as a reduction in the points of friction between Palestinians and Israeli security forces’.
It is also the policy of the Israeli government to promote Palestinian economic development in the West Bank, in the belief that this will undermine extremism and create a more conducive environment for peace. The reduction in movement restrictions and high levels of donor aid from the US and EU have facilitated considerable economic improvement in the West Bank. Quartet envoy Tony Blair has worked with the parties to help facilitate this process, as well as to promote projects that build up Palestinian institutions.
However, lack of political progress in the peace process, the divisions with Hamas, and a decline in aid from Arab states have led to acute financial problems for the Palestinian Authority. In 2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry announced an ambitious new plan to promote private sector investment in the West Bank and give a new boost to the Palestinian economy.
What is the situation in the Gaza Strip?
The Gaza Strip is a small territory on the Mediterranean coast that borders Israel and Egypt. It is home to approximately 1.8 million Palestinians, and is under the rule of the radical Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.
Under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine, Gaza was supposed to become part of the Palestinian Arab state. However, after Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, it came under Egyptian military occupation. The territory was captured by Israel from Egypt in the 1967 Six Day War. Between 1967 and 2005 approximately 8,000 Israeli civilians established communities in the Gaza Strip. In the summer of 2005, Israel withdrew all of its civilians, dismantled the settlements and removed all of its military forces. In November 2005, Israel signed an Agreement on Movement and Access with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that put the Gaza Strip’s borders with Egypt and Israel under Palestinian control; the first time in history that Palestinians had managed their own borders. The agreement also included plans to increase exports from the Gaza Strip and for the development of a seaport and an airport.
After the armed extremist group Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections and established a Palestinian government in January 2006, the agreement broke down. The number of rockets being fired at Israeli towns from Gaza by Hamas and other armed groups – a form of attack that began in 2001 – increased considerably. In July 2007, a short-lived Palestinian unity government between Hamas and Fatah collapsed, with Hamas violently ejecting forces loyal to PA President Mahmouid Abbas and taking complete control of the Gaza Strip.
Restrictions on borders
Despite the fact that Gaza is controlled by Hamas, Israeli policy is to allow all goods to enter from Israel except for those that could be used to make weapons. Israel works with the UN, the Palestinian Authority and other international agencies to facilitate the entry of building materials – which could also be used for military purposes – under close supervision. Exports and the movement of people are also limited, though thousands of medical patients routinely cross into Israel from Gaza for advanced medical treatment each month. Egypt tightly restricts movement through the Gaza-Egypt border most of the time, accusing Hamas of assisting ISIL/Daish affiliated terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula.
Because of the threat posed by Hamas to Israel, after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Israel acted to stop the smuggling of weapons by preventing maritime access. It also restricted the goods that could be imported to the Gaza Strip from Israel. Operating the border crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip was made more difficult by terrorist attacks by Hamas on the crossings themselves. In May 2010 nine Turkish activists from the Islamist IHH group were killed in a confrontation with Israeli forces aboard the Mavi Marama, whilst trying to breach the maritime blockade. Following this incident, Israel relaxed its border policy to allow more goods to enter. The maritime blockade was subsequently declared legal by a UN inquiry led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, given the threat that Israel faces from Hamas.
The restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of the Gaza Strip have severely damaged the Gaza economy, increased dependency on aid, and greatly limited the opportunities for the people living there. The long-term solution for Gaza is in the hands of Hamas. It will be difficult for Gaza to function normally so long as Hamas threatens Israeli and Egyptian security. If Hamas were to accept the Quartet conditions by renouncing violence, accepting previous agreements in the peace process, and recognising Israel, there would be no further need for restrictions to access and movement in Gaza.
Operation Cast Lead (2008-9)
At the end of 2008 Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a three-week military campaign against militants in Gaza to stop the firing of rockets at Israeli towns. A UN inquiry led by Judge Richard Goldstone heavily criticised both Israel and Hamas for their conduct during the operation. Israel maintained that it made considerable efforts to prevent harm to civilians but that this was made difficult by Hamas hiding its military infrastructure within the civilian population. Nonetheless, after its own internal inquiries, Israel did institute further safeguards to try to minimise harm to civilians in military operations. Judge Goldstone later retracted the accusation that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians.
Operation Protective Edge (2014)
In June 2014, following the abduction of three Israeli teenagers (later found murdered) by a Hamas cell in the West Bank, Israel arrested hundreds of Hamas operatives in an operation to find the missing teens. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups responded with increased rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
On 7 July, over 100 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to stop the rocket fire. Israel began with air operations and only initiated ground operations after Hamas rejected an Egyptian proposed ceasefire on 15 July, and after the threat from Hamas built attack tunnels became clear.
Some 4,500 rockets were fired from Gaza during the conflict. Utilising weapons and technology from Iran, rockets held by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad targeted every major Israeli city. Air raid sirens in Israeli cities gave residents between 15 seconds and a minute to take cover in shelters whilst Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system was deployed to try and intercept the rockets.
During the conflict Hamas used tunnels dug under the border to launch raids into Israel, and had the intention to attack and kidnap Israeli soldiers and civilians. Tunnels uncovered by Israel during the conflict were filled with ammunition, weaponry, IDF uniforms to be used as disguises, tranquilizers and motorbikes.
Hamas systematically broke humanitarian ceasefires, including on the 1, 11 and 19 of August.
Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups systematically used the Palestinian civilian population as cover, fighting almost entirely from within the civilian population and infrastructure and openly calling for civilians to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate targeted areas.
Between 8 July and 5 August, there were 260 rockets fired from schools, 160 from religious sites and 50 from hospitals. Mosques, schools, hospitals and homes were also used to store weapons and to fire at IDF soldiers.
By contrast, the IDF made extensive efforts to avoid civilian casualties: it made phone calls and sent text messages to civilians in buildings designated for attack and repeatedly dropped leaflets with specific instructions to evacuate areas in which the IDF was planning to operate.
On 26 August Israel and Hamas agreed an open-ended ceasefire. Research by the Israel-based Terrorism Information Center indicates that of the approximately 2,000 Palestinian killed around half were involved in the fighting. The IDF had 66 soldiers killed, and six civilians were killed in Israel.
What is the status of Jerusalem?
As the religious, national and cultural focal point of the Jewish people for 3000 years, Jerusalem holds a unique status for Israel. The city has had a Jewish majority since the mid 1800s. Successive Israeli governments have emphasised the city’s political and symbolic centrality for the country. Between 1949 and 1967, Jerusalem was divided between Israel, which held the western parts of the city, and Jordan, which controlled the eastern neighbourhoods, as well as the Old City. During that period, Jews were prevented from accessing the Jewish holy places in and around the Old City and the two parts of the city were divided by a fortified border.
After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel gained control over East Jerusalem, Israel removed the border and reunified the city. During this process, Israel expanded the municipal boundary of the city, extended its sovereignty over the entire city, and proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Arab residents in East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship, though most of them did not take it up. The Old City was reopened to worshippers of all faiths. Jews were again permitted to reside in the Old City, having been forced out of the Jewish Quarter by Jordanian forces in 1948. Israel also constructed new neighbourhoods and towns around the city. In building these new areas, Israel aimed to strengthen its hold on the city, and prevent a situation such as happened in 1948, where Jerusalem was temporarily cut off from the rest of Israel and besieged.
Government construction in Jerusalem is not guided by the intention to create a Jewish presence within Arab neighbourhoods. However, independent Jewish right-wing organisations have worked to acquire houses in Arab neighbourhoods like Silwan and Jabel Mukaber. The Israeli government contends that there is no legal basis to prevent Jews from acquiring homes in eastern neighbourhoods of the city.
Jerusalem is also of central importance to the Palestinians and they claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The fate of the city has been part of successive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. In the 2000 Camp David Summit, the 2001 Taba Summit and the 2007-8 Annapolis Process between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, various compromise solutions were discussed. Both Ehud Barak in 2000, and Ehud Olmert in 2008, agreed to Palestinian sovereignty in the Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, but could not secure an agreement from the Palestinians.
What are the goals of Palestinian terrorism?
Palestinian terrorist groups often justify their attacks on Israeli civilians as ‘resistance to the occupation’. However, most of the groups carrying out violence are opposed to the peace process and an agreed two-state solution, and are committed to Israel’s destruction. The real goal of these organisations is not to bring about the end of Israel’s presence in the territories. Their agenda is to prevent Israelis from living a normal life, and to prevent the development of a peaceful two-state solution. The clearest indication of this is the fact that the focus of their attacks, whether they are suicide bombings or rocket attacks on cities, is often civilians inside Israel.
The Israeli government supports the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. The Oslo process, initiated in 1993, aimed to reach a final status agreement between the two sides. Extremist groups have consistently acted to undermine this process. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, Israel has lost hundreds of lives in Palestinian terrorist attacks, with thousands more maimed and injured in shootings, bombings, suicide attacks and rocket and mortar fire.
The perpetrators of terrorism in the 1990s were opposed to peace with Israel, and their actions helped undermine the peace process, which was increasingly handing over autonomy to the Palestinians. In US-brokered peace talks in 2000, the Israeli government agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state close to the 1967 borders, but Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal. He then gave his support to the Second Intifada, which caused immense damage to the peace process. After Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip unilaterally in 2005, rocket attacks by extremist groups there only intensified.
Palestinian violence perpetrated by extremists runs contrary to the interests of the Palestinian people, as has been recognised by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The threat of violence forces Israel to use defensive measures, such as restrictions on movement in the West Bank and entry into Israel, which inhibit the lives of ordinary Palestinians and their economic development. Without the threat of violence from extremist groups, there would be no need to apply these restrictions.
What threat do rocket attacks pose to Israel?
In recent years, the primary method by which terrorist groups have sought to attack Israeli civilians has been the use of rockets and mortars. Since 2001, terrorist groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired domestically produced ‘Qassam’ rockets at Israeli communities in and close to the Gaza Strip. Since 2001, thousands of Qassams have been fired at civilian population centres in southern Israel, resulting in 64 deaths, several of them children, as well as hundreds of injuries.
The worst hit has been the small town of Sderot, which has a population of 23,000. After Israel withdrew from the whole of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the rate of attacks increased markedly, until the launch of Operation Cast lead at the end of 2008 led to a reduction in rocket fire for a time.
During Operation Pillar of Defence in November 2012, Palestinian armed groups demonstrated they had improved their capability, using homemade and Iranian supplied rockets to reach the areas of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv for the first time. The operation succeeded in dramatically reducing the rocket attacks. However, Hamas has not stopped trying to smuggle more rockets in preparation for a future round of conflict.
Whilst the number of fatalities from rocket attacks is relatively low compared to the numbers killed in suicide bombings, the impact on the day-to-day lives of those living within range of the rockets is immeasurable. Ninety per cent of residents in Sderot have experienced a rocket falling in their street or in an adjacent street. Early warning sirens give residents around 15 seconds to take cover before the rocket strikes. That means being more than 15 seconds from a shelter at any time is potentially life threatening.
Towns in the western Negev region close to the border are some of the poorest in Israel. Few residents can afford to move away, but businesses have been forced to close and manufacturers have relocated. Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defence system, deployed for the first time in 2011, offers some protection, but does not prevent residents having to take shelter when rockets are fired.
The threat of rockets does not come only from Israel’s south. In 2006, during the Second Lebanon War, the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah fired close to 4,000 rockets provided by Iran and Syria at northern Israel. One million Israelis were forced into bomb shelters and hundreds of thousands left their homes to be out of range. In the course of one month, 44 Israeli civilians were killed and over 4,000 wounded.
In the case of both the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, stopping the rocket fire has proved a very difficult task for the IDF. Rockets are easily concealed within civilian areas and can be fired by small cells from a simple pipe or the back of an ordinary-looking truck. Those who have been responsible for firing the rockets, be it Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip, deliberately target Israeli civilians. They act from within civilian areas with little regard for the danger posed to people on their own side. Coming under this kind of rocket assault, from territories from which Israel has withdrawn, has made Israel extremely wary of future territorial concessions.
How does Israel investigate the conduct of its military?
Israel has declared that it is committed to investigating all credible allegations of misconduct against its armed forces, whether they come from Palestinian sources, the media, or NGOs. Responsibility for IDF investigations falls to the Military Advocate General (MAG), a legal officer with the rank of Major General who heads an independent legal branch within the IDF. The Military Advocate General is appointed directly by the Defence Minister and is outside the IDF command structure. He determines whether a case warrants a full criminal investigation.
The decisions of the Military Advocate General are subject to review by Israel’s civilian Attorney General, who is also an independent figure. A complainant or non-governmental organisation may trigger the review of the Attorney General by simply sending a letter directly to the Attorney General. Both the decisions of the Military Advocate General and the Attorney General are subject to judicial review by Israel’s Supreme Court, which can be petitioned by any interested party including Israelis and Palestinians alike, and NGOs. One hundred and fifty allegations were investigated following Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s major military operation to stop rocket attacks from Gaza. These have resulted in disciplinary and criminal proceedings against IDF soldiers and officers in some cases.
Israel also has a strong legacy of independent judicial and state inquiries into the conduct of military and political leaders in times of conflict. In two recent examples, major inquiries were led by former Supreme Court judges into the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010 in which nine Turkish activists were killed.
How does Israel avoid harming innocent people in conflict?
Israel has been drawn into conflicts with irregular forces in urban environments. In recent operations in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon, Israel has acted primarily to prevent the firing of rockets at its town and cities. As with British and American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel faces complex problems in fighting against forces which deliberately hide among the civilian population.
The IDF considers itself bound by international humanitarian law and makes use of all available measures to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and to act with proportionality. Its soldiers are required to act according to its ethical code, known as ‘The Spirit of the IDF’. This code includes the principle of the ‘Purity of Arms’, according to which forces are expected to do all they can to prevent harm to non-combatants.
This task is deliberately made difficult by the tactics of the militant groups Israel is confronting. Both Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon deliberately embed themselves within civilian populations in order to make it harder for Israel to act against them.
During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military operation to stop rocket fire from Gaza at the beginning of 2009, Hamas fighters used the civilian population as cover. They fired rockets at Israel from civilian areas, established bases and weapons stores in mosques, apartment buildings, and hospitals and booby trapped civilian neighbourhoods. Fighters removed their uniforms so it would be impossible for the Israeli forces to distinguish combatants and non-combatants.
Israel used a range of techniques to try and overcome these challenges. These included issuing widespread warnings to civilians with leaflet drops, and telephoning residents of individual buildings to warn them they were going to be targeted. After the operation the Israeli military launched a number of investigations to examine lessons that could be learned to further reduce the harm to civilians. These included better coordination with humanitarian agencies and better control over the use of weapons which caused harm to civilians, such as white phosphorous.
In July 2010 Israel announced that to better ensure its own adherence with its humanitarian responsibilities, a humanitarian officer would be introduced to combat units at battalion level. In 2013 Israel announced it was all but stopping the use of white phosphorous, except for a very limited number of specific situations.
In 2009 an inquiry commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council and led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, claimed that Israel had deliberately struck civilian targets in the Gaza Strip. Israel rejected absolutely the accusation that it deliberately targeted civilians and after reviewing Israeli reports into its own conduct, Judge Goldstone retracted the claim.
Which other armed groups are active in the Palestinian territories?
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades: The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is a coalition of armed Palestinian groups linked to Fatah, the secular Palestinian nationalist movement. Formed in October 2000, the groups have taken responsibility for hundreds of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, in which Israeli civilians have been killed. It is designated as a terrorist group in the United States. After 2007, many of the Brigades’ activists in the West Bank signed amnesty deals with Israel and ceased their engagement in violence. However, the group still regularly claims responsibility for the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): The PIJ is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through jihad (holy war). The PIJ considers Israel and pro-Western, secular Arab regimes to be manifestations of Western imperialism in Islamic lands. The PIJ has been responsible for many attacks, including suicide bombings, against Israeli targets, and routinely fires rockets at Israel from Gaza. The group is proscribed in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. The PIJ is considerably smaller than Hamas, and draws inspiration from a combination of Iranian Shi’ite Islamist revolutionary ideology and Palestinian nationalism. Its main source of support is Iran.
The Popular Resistance Committees (PRC): The PRC is a terrorist organisation active in the Gaza Strip. The organisation was founded at the beginning of the Second Intifada in September 2000, by former Fatah and Palestinian security apparatus members. Its ranks also include ex-Hamas terrorists and operatives who belonged to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP): The PFLP was founded in 1967 with the stated objective of liberating all of ‘Palestine’ to establish a democratic socialist Palestinian state. The group has a long record of terrorism both inside Israel and internationally, claiming many victims. In 2001 the group was responsible for the assassination of then-Israeli tourism minister, Rehavam Ze’evi. The PFLP remains engaged in rocket attacks and shootings against Israeli targets.
Global jihadist groups: Various armed groups subscribing to global jihadist ideologies have become increasingly active in the Gaza Strip and the neighbouring Sinai Peninsula in recent years. These groups are responsible for attacks both against Israel and Egyptian security and infrastructure targets in the Sinai.
Would a boycott of Israel help the Palestinians?
A boycott would do nothing to contribute to the advancement of a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Far from helping the Palestinians, a boycott would hinder the development of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians on which prospects for future peace and security rely. The goal of peace depends on two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, working together with international support towards the mutual goal of a negotiated two-state solution. An environment of rejection and misdirected pressure targeted at Israel is counterproductive to an internationally-backed peace process premised on the development of mutual understanding and respect for both sides.
An academic and cultural boycott, which has been promoted by various trade unions and other activists, contradicts the principles of scientific ethics and the open spirit of international cooperation between scientists, artists and others. It is particularly counterproductive to target Israel’s academic community, which has a proud record of promoting honest debate, criticism and self-examination within Israeli society. Israel’s universities have a significant Arab student intake and are important forums for interaction and cooperation between Jews and Arabs. Arab citizens of Israel have increasingly risen to high ranks within Israeli academia.
Whereas Israel, an open and democratic state in which Jewish and Arab citizens enjoy equal rights, and which embraces free academic inquiry, has been threatened with a boycott, no other country is subject to such a campaign.
Similarly, an economic boycott cannot help the Palestinian people, whose future prosperity depends on creating an atmosphere of economic and political cooperation. Since Israel’s establishment, the Arab world has tried to use an economic boycott to isolate and weaken Israel economically, and thus make the state non-viable. Whilst Egypt and Jordan have direct trade links with Israel, most Arab states are reluctant to trade directly with Israel. The Roadmap peace plan specifically calls for the normalisation of relations between the Arab states and Israel, including the return of trade links.