The Middle East Cultural Conflict - Term Paper Example

The Middle East Cultural Conflict between Jews and Arabs The cultural conflict between Israel and Palestine has become apersistent issue whose solution is yet to be attained. The conflict that started towards the end of the 19th century has yet to be resolved two centuries down the line. While there is a concession that the issue of land has become a source of conflict for many countries, the war between Jews and Arabs has become a complex matter with both sides raising pertinent issues. The conflict erupted during the statism era when all groups were gathering space to become independent entities as stand-alone countries. The Israel held the mentality that the Palestinian land belonged to them and were determined to repossess the land and demarcate boundaries. On the other hand, the Arabs were the original inhabitants and had occupied the largest portion of the land centuries before. The conflict emerged when Jews attempted to acquire the Palestine land and the Arabs were meant to believe that this was a dispossession process that aimed at eliminating them. From a critical point of view, the motive of the Jews was marred by aggressive selfishness and displacing the original inhabitants was inappropriate. Therefore, this essay seeks to reveal the origin of the conflict and to provide a recommendation for resolution of the conflict. The history of the Middle East conflict can be dated back to the colonial period when the Palestine land comprised part of the Ottoman Empire. At that time, the Arabs, who comprised of Muslims and Christians, occupied the land although there was evidence of existence of immigrant Jews who largely occupied Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberia, cities that had religious significance to this group. However, there was evidence that by the end of the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire would be collapsing and the colonial rule would melt away (Podeh, 22-37). At this time, most groups in the world were busy gathering together to establish states that they could live under self-rule. Majority of the people occupied the land that they possessed at that particular time, although expansionism was still evidenced as countries fought for the control of land. The Israelites were among “the landless people” who were also busy searching for a space that they could call their own (Touval 8). Evidently, the Jews were dispersed across the Middle East and they risked losing their identity at a time when land was becoming an important issue across the world. Israel, just like any other group, decided to join in the search for an identity. During this period, there was a great cultural integration between different groups. Huntington’s theory of cultural conflicts defines culture as a conglomeration of people with similar behavior. Such people are tied together and have social ties that bind them together. A Zionist movement started in Europe and the Jews quickly started flowing into Palestine with an intention of possessing the land. One of their strategies was to purchase land from the poor Arabs and concentrate them into big chunks and secure it as a personal property. Later, they instituted farm managers to safeguard these lands and refused to resell or lease this land to the Arabs. The acquisition of land was initiated when the Zionist leaders met at the Tel Aviv Museum and decided to acquire the land of Palestine and establish “the state of Israel.” The question of why the Zionist targeted this land rather than any other areas has become a pertinent issue in the Middle East case (Podeh, 38). Their actions seem to have a historical connotation in the Bible and the idea of the Promised Land. The Jews believed that Palestine was their forefather’s land and that this was the designated state of Israel. Therefore, they felt justified to occupy this land and to establish their dynasty at an important time in history. However, the Arab became conscious of the intentions of the Zionist and launched resistance to the Zionist movement. Therefore, the source of conflict between the Jews and the Arabs was the struggle by the Arabs to resist dispossession by the Zionists who were slowly evicting the natives of the land and forcing them out to other places. This was a period when cultural orientation was an important factor of social formation. As Hofstede’s cultural theory suggests, culture determines the way people behave (15-41). The Arabs felt that the Jews were taking advantage of their poverty to purchase land from them and bar them from repurchasing the land or even leasing (Smith 17). The bitterness of the Palestinians resulted into a conflict whose aim was to push away the immigrants who were already occupying a large portion of the land. In May 1948, the member of Arab Allies including Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and the Holy War army marched their forces in Palestine attacking the Jew who were already comfortably occupying the land (Podeh 39-70). Besides, this team served the United Nations council with a notice to restore law in Palestine and to prevent Jews from taking up their territories, an issue that would trigger bloodshed in the region. In June, there was already a violent confrontation between the Arabs and Jews punctuated with numerous raids and counter-raid, which formed the beginning of a bigger war. From this perspective, the Arabs and Jews have taken different sides to defend their position in the issue and to justify the right ownership of the land. From the Jews perspective, Palestine was their promised land and they acquired it legally by purchasing it from the Palestinian Arabs who had previously occupied the land. At that time, the notion that the land was free was largely accepted shortly after the end of colonialism. The public had the right to purchase or sell the land at their will and decide what to do with the land (Podeh 12-15). The interpretation of culture by Geertz is a good ground to interpret the conflict between the two cultures (Hofstede 25). People tied to the same culture pursue the same interests and fight for a common cause. Therefore, the Jews justified their acquisition approach and did not reveal their motive to create an Israel state. On the other hand, the Arabs were also convinced on the need to establish self-determined state, which would ensure that Arabs took control of the land. They clearly understood the motives of the Jews to establish their own rule and exterminate the majority Arabs within Palestine (Quandt 3). As the numbers would have it, the Palestine would have been an Arab empire since the majority of its natives were Arabs who comprised of both Christians and Muslims. Therefore, then conflict can be perceived as the great struggle for the control of the Palestinian land. The European role in the crisis may further illuminate the tension that ensued between the Arabs and the Zionists. Britain promises to the Arabs and Jews a major source of the conflict in the Middle East. As British government anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they secretly conspired with Arab leaders such as Faysal and Lawrence to overthrow the Ottoman control. In return, the Britain promised the Arabs that they would help them set up a self-ruled state in the Middle East region including Palestine. After the First World War, Britain, supported by the Arabs had successfully taken control of the land. However, in 1917, the British foreign Minister, Balfour, promised to support the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (Beinin 14). The two contradictory promises became a source of tension when the Arabs felt that the Britain had betrayed their earlier promise. Moreover, the Arabs were already getting frustrated with the long pursuance for independence that seemed a far dream. By the year 1921, there tension was high as European Jewish immigrants used the Jewish National Fund to purchase large tracts of land from Arabs who were absent and hence leading to their eviction. Consequently, it was obvious that the Arabs would become wary of the Jewish movement and the Britain betrayal of the promise to allow the Arabs to create a self-ruled state. The result was continued the launch of British opposition by Palestine peasants, journalists, and political masterminds within the group. In 1920 and 1921, the tension in Palestine was so high that Arabs and Jews were ready to engage in severe clashes in which many died and score injured from both sides (Beinin14-27). However, the Britain motive to provide the Israelites with a state in Palestine seems to have been a selfish move to ensure that they could take over lands that the Jews had previously occupied. The motive of the British government became clearer when the Arabs organized a revolt in 1936, to fight against the Jewish immigrants. In response, Britain easily won the support of the Zionist militia and successful neutralized the Arabs. After this revolt, in an urge to restore order, Britain issued the white paper, a document that restricted further inflow of Jewish and the purchasing of land. However, this was only a strategy to control the ever growing tension, but the Jews detected betrayal in the new law, which contradicted the Belfour statement. From this perspective, the British can be perceived as the people behind the trigger of violence between the Palestine and Israel. In the bid to gain to control Palestine and its surroundings, the British government provided contradicting promises, which ignited the tension between the tribes (Touval 26). By promising the Arabs independence, they provided them with the hope of becoming the dominant people in Palestine. On the other, the Belfour promise was contradicting and provided the Israel with the hope to acquire the Palestine land. Therefore, Britain provided promises that they could not possibly deliver as they pursued their selfish goals. From an Arab perspective, the promise for independence came long before the British promise to the Jews (Podeh 25). Therefore, the Arabs had the right to occupy the land, following the promise, more so considering that they were the natives in this land. On the other hand, it was justified for the Britain to support the Israel in acquiring new land as they had already taken over areas that Jews had formerly settled. The Israelites were landless and it was only right for Britain to provide them with a place to settle. From a close analysis, the British double-promise underpins the Jews-Arab conflict that persists even today. The intervention of the UN, shortly after the British released Palestine further heightened the tension between the two states. The UN formed an intervention team that sought to resolve the dispute diplomatically (Quandt 10). Notably, it was only logical to create a win-win strategy that would neutralize the tension between the Arabs, who were already willing to fight for their promised rights. In this case, the UN diplomats decided that the best approach to the problem was to partition the region under conflict between the two groups. However, the major mistake that the UN committed was unequal sharing, which favored the Jews. The UN assigned the biggest portion, 58% of the land, to Jews citing the fact that increased immigration would see the land become smaller for the Jews (Touval 31-40). While the Jews quickly accepted the offer, the Arabs felt that it was unfair to lose the largest portion of their native land to foreigners. Moreover, there were already rumors that the Jews were planning to further expand their land. Therefore, the UN decision resulted to increase in tension as their rationale appeared skewed toward Jewish motives. As expected, the displeased Arabs mounted an attack as soon as the UN partition plan was implemented. However, this became a game of power which could only be won by those who had enough military power. Since the Israelites had a well-organized army, they easily won against the Arabs and unleashed their mission to occupy part of the Palestine land. While the Arabs may be blamed for failing to agree with the UN decision and attacking Israel, there is evidence that the Jews were oppressive and had hidden motives to take control over the entire land (Podeh 78). Their struggle to use their well-organized army to displace the weaker Palestine nation was evil, and puts them to blame for the increased blood-letting war in the Middle East. Besides, the Arabs grew bitter as Jews launched an attack against Arabs who remained in Israel as refugees in an effort to eliminate non-Jews in Israel (Benin 23). This resulted into further attacks as the Palestinians sought to reacquire taken land and rescue the dignity of their people. Therefore, the Jewish extremism was a trigger for increased enmity between the two states at a time when the Arabs had suffered too much in land that they had held as their own for a long time. The US and British continued support for Israel is questionable and a major driver for increased violence. When Egypt proposed for a peace negotiation that would see the Arabs acquire their territories back, the US government was prompt to support Israel in fighting against the Egyptians. They provided Israel with enough military resources that would see them defeat Egypt and neutralize any terrorist attacks within their country. The US decision seems biased and unreasonable. It was only logical for the US to consider the fact that Israel had already expanded beyond the UN established boarder and the only way to resolve the conflict was to convince the Jews to surrender taken land to the Arabs as one way of upholding peace in the Middle East. Therefore, rather than a peace searching process, the conflict became a measure of military strength where only the strong would survive and the weak would surrender. The US has come has come under spot for supporting the oppression of the Arabs in the war of 1967 (Beinin 21). The US was expected to play a neutral role and help the two groups to peacefully pursue their grievances. From a critical analysis, the conflict between Israel and Palestine originates from Jewish ill motives to displace the Arabs. Although the Jews were in desperate need for land after the evolution of anti-Semitism and the Germany government efforts to displace Jews from their land, it is clear that Jews had hidden motives against the Palestinians. The Jews used their financial power to dispossess the Arabs of their land and to further expand their land after even after the UN intervention (Quandt 13). The US and British support for the Jews has further contribute to the conflict as they further propagated the killing of Palestinians whose motive was to restore their land. Although the Arabs may be blamed for failing to consent to various diplomatic intervention and for repeatedly issuing terror threats, there evidence that they have been a victim of unfair treatment. Therefore, the resolution of the conflict must reconsider the role of international bodies. To create peace, there is need to make up for the losses of the Arabs as a way of reducing their bitterness and restoring the formerly established UN boundaries to ensure that diplomacy is upheld. For instance, resettling the Palestine Refugees and support of the second class Palestinians would be a milestone in ending the conflict. In conclusion, the conflict between Arabs and Jews is embedded in the victimization of the Arabs within a land that they had occupied for a long time. The Jews ill motives are apparent from their strategies to use their financial power and military power to undermine the native Arabs. While they may argue that they acquired the land rightfully, it is clear that their main intention was to displace the Arabs and create an Israel State. The British government played a big role in igniting the spark between the two groups by providing conflicting promises to them, which brought them closer to conflict. The UN intervention strategies failed by exercising favoritism of the Jews by awarding them a bigger portion of the Palestine land. The US and British support of the Israel during war has left the Arabs with bitter feelings as they pursue the right to repossess their native land. Therefore, resolution of the Israel-Palestine terrorism lies in compromise, rehabilitation of Arabs and establishment of clear boundaries between the two groups. Works Cited Beinin, Hajjar. Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 2014. Accessed from :< http://www.merip.org/sites/default/files/Primer_on_Palestine-Israel(MERIP_February2014)final.pdf > [Accessed on 11th May, 2015] Hofstede, Geert. "Culture and organizations." International Studies of Management & Organization (1980): 15-41. Podeh, Elie, ed. Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000. IAP, 2005. Print. Quandt, William B. Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. Brookings Institution Press, 2010. Print. Smith, Charles D. "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict." 1992. Print Touval, Saadia. The Peace Brokers: Mediators in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1979. Vol. 82. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Read More