Editor's Note

The Palestinian uprising that broke out in September 2000 marks one of the most volatile and dangerous phases of the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians—itself one of the world’s most sensitive crises, fraught with jeopardy for regional and even global peace.

This second major Palestinian revolt against Israeli rule has been dubbed the “al-Aqsa intifada” after the clashes which precipitated it near the sacred mosque in Jerusalem. Of course, deeper causes than those clashes underlay the new intifada, and one aim of this issue of Global Dialogue is to investigate what they were. Another is to inquire what grounds remain for hope of an Israeli–Palestinian peace, and whether a descent into outright catastrophe can be prevented.

Norman G. Finkelstein of DePaul University in Chicago provides our opening contribution—a magisterial overview of the historical and ideological roots of the conflict, and its course up to and including the al-Aqsa intifada. Finkelstein fears that the changed international environment since 11 September 2024 may tempt Israel into a complete expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories and perhaps also from Israel itself. He believes the best hope of averting such a tragedy lies in a “non-violent Palestinian civil revolt” that is “synchronised with international pressure”.

The nature of Israel’s military response to the al-Aqsa intifada is assessed by the Israeli scholars, Haim and Rivca Gordon. They contend that many of Israel’s measures are war crimes under international law, and they call for the prosecution of those who ordered and perpetrated them.

Concerns such as those raised by the Gordons have prompted what is widely seen as one of the most hopeful developments in the current uprising—the growth of a movement of Israeli reserve soldiers who refuse on moral grounds to serve in the occupied territories. One such “refusenik”, artillery sergeant Ariel Shatil, recounts the path that led him to his personal decision, and outlines the goals and principles of his fellow objectors.

The declared purpose of “Operation Defensive Shield”, Israel’s military incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, was to “destroy the infrastructure of terrorism”. But the scale and depth of Israel’s reoccupation of Palestinian localities cause anthropologist and peace activist Jeff Halper to attribute a much broader strategic goal to the operation, namely, a final defeat of the Palestinians that confines them in a cantonised mini-state.

The two contributions that follow trace, with varying emphases, the route to today’s impasse, via the Oslo process, the July 2000 Camp David talks, the eruption of the second intifada and Israel’s crackdown. Ahmad S. Khalidi of St Antony’s College, Oxford, argues that the bloodshed of 2002 has returned the conflict to “where we all started in 1948—an all-out existential war for the land of Palestine”. Marwan Bishara of the American University in Paris concludes that the sole options open to Israelis and Palestinians are to live either in two separate states, or in a single, binational state accommodating both peoples. The present situation of Palestinian statelessness and Israeli occupation is simply untenable in the long term.

The two chief obstacles to securing a definitive Israeli–Palestinian peace—involving, as they do, passionate commitments on both sides—are the questions of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. The first is discussed by John Quigley of Ohio State University. He reviews the factors relevant to a Jerusalem solution, and asserts the central importance of who has a right to live in the city.

The historical origins of the Palestinian refugee issue are examined by Nur Masalha of St Mary’s College, England. He looks at the causes of the nakba, the mass exodus of Palestinians in the period surrounding the Arab–Israeli war of 1948. The numerous Palestinian and Israeli stances on and proposed solutions to the refugee problem are then surveyed by Elia Zureik of Queen’s University, Ontario.

The most crucial external player in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is, of course, the United States. Marc H. Ellis of Baylor University, Texas, argues that US foreign policy has helped foster the growth of a Jewish fundamentalist settler movement in Israel. He further reflects on the moral, political and spiritual consequences of US Jewry’s largely uncritical support for Israel.

Is the US public properly informed about events in Israel/Palestine? No, answers Seth Ackerman of FAIR, the New York–based media watchdog group. He discerns a persistent pro‑Israel bias in US media reporting of the conflict. Exploring the reasons for this bias, he considers how it might be overcome.

The goal of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state enjoys broad international support as offering the best hope of a solution to the conflict. But Joseph Massad of Columbia University, New York, maintains it is in fact a chimera that has split the Palestinian people. Strongly criticising Yasser Arafat’s leadership, he insists that it is only within a binational, democratic state embracing both Israelis and Palestinians that the rights of all Palestinians can be attained and a lasting peace secured.

Finally, Mohammed Abu-Nimer of American University, Washington, D.C., asks whether the present terrible reality of suicide bombings and military onslaught has rendered Israeli–Palestinian dialogue pointless. He discusses the basic conditions such dialogue must meet if it is to have any chance of strengthening the long-term prospects for peace.

Paul Theodoulou
Summer 2002