William Tyler
Wars and Intifadas
William Tyler - Wars and Intifadas
- Welcome everyone. Welcome back to this penultimate talk in the present series. Today my talk’s going to focus on the various wars launched at against Israel between the end of the first war, 1948, ‘49, and right up to the present day of 2024. It’s also going to cover the retaliatory and presumptive strikes by Israel against both its Arab neighbours and Islamic terrorist groups. And we’ll look also at some of the many failed attempts to bring peace to the Middle East. I’m going to make no excuse this week for telling the story as one of a new nation state, Israel, surrounded by its enemies, strongly and succeedingly and successfully surviving over a period of some three quarters of a century since its founding in 1948. Of course, by doing this, I’m largely ignoring the Arab arguments for the causes of the conflict in the Middle East. The large support for Palestine across the Arab world of the Middle East is the primary cause, as the Palestinians and Arabs see it, of the cause of the war, the creation of a Palestinian state. Now, this can mean two things, either the creation of a two nation Palestine, an Arab Palestine, and an Israel. That is to say, in fact, United Nations Resolution of 181, which we looked at last week. Although many Arabs regard this situation as only going to be achieved by war and by conflict. The second, which is now expressed by Hamas, supported by what we might call an eclectic political allies in the West, is the destruction of Israel, and Israel replacement by an Arab state. As the propaganda from Hamas says, from the river to the sea, the extermination of the state of Israel.
These deep, deep divisions between Arab and Jew and the political nuances on both sides will form the basis of my final talk in this series next week. I’m not dodging the issue of the debate, if you like, or the arguments put forward by the Arab side, that I will look at next week because clearly if there’s going to be a settlement, they have to be taken into account. But this week I want to concentrate on the facts as we see them in the West and as Israel sees them, from 1949 to 2024. So I’m sticking to this story then of the David of Israel facing the Goliaths of the Arab world. And next week I’ve got to tackle what my friend, Stanley, who listens from Toronto, used to me a phrase, “the Gordian knot of Middle Eastern settlement.” If there is going to be a settlement, and in the end there has to be a settlement, then that Gordian knot has to be cut. Israel is here for the long, and I’ve written eternal time, to believe otherwise believes in the destruction of Israel, something that the West could not possibly contemplate, and which would of course be against international law anyhow. The destruction of Israel isn’t going to happen as far as any of us can see in any future that any of us can see. But how the Gordian knot of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East will be cut is a different question. There will have to be a settlement because Israel is not going to be destroyed. And how that settlement might come about and when it might come about is anyone’s guess.
But we will look at the various stories told by different people, the various answers given to how to cut this Gordian knot next week. That I think will probably be the hardest talk I’ve prepared. This by contrast is relatively straightforward, but I thought it worthwhile that we should be clear on what the background to 2024 is. Now, I understand that lots of you know a lot of this background, but if you will just think for a moment, if you were asked now to give the chronology of the events of Israel versus its Arab neighbours and its facing of Arab terrorism, maybe some things get hazy. And I think it’s important to see the chronological order of this in order to give ourselves a clear base from which to tackle the question of where do we go from here. In his book, the Histories of Nations, edited by Peter Furtado, the section on Israel opened with this paragraph. And when I read it again preparing this talk, I thought this paragraph really sums up for me what I want to say by way of an introduction and a recap. And in Furtado’s book, which is on my blog at the moment, “Israel is both an old country and a new one. The modern state was established in the midst of a bloody conflict in 1948 that most Israelis view as a zero sum game in which there could be only one winner.” Had Israel lost in '48, '49, there might not be an Israel today, that’s what it means. “The armies of the invading Arab states could afford to lose the war, but the Israelis believed that they faced annihilation if they did not succeed. United Nations’ Resolution 181,” which I’ve already referred to, “in November, 1947, had offered the partition of British Palestine,” the mandate that Britain held after the First World War, “had offered the partition of British mandate and a two party solution.
The Zionist Jews accepted this, but the Palestinian Arabs did not.” A point that many of you have made in emails to me or in questions afterwards. “Jews accepted this, but the Palestinian Arabs did not. The losers in this bit of conflict that is said, Arabs, called the war of 1948, the "Nakba” or “The Catastrophe,” while the victors, that is Israel, termed it “The Israeli War of Independence.”“ He adds, "the war precipitated an exodus of up to 760,000 Arabs, some of whom were expelled. The Arab refugees settled mainly in the West Bank and Gaza as well as in neighbouring Arab countries.” And thus the modern drama is set. And thus the modern drama is set. The West Bank and Gaza. The question of a Palestinian state remain with us. As does of course, the question of the vulnerability of Israel from attacks by not just states, but in particular from terrorist groups, at the moment, overwhelmingly from Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. The great defining moment, of course for the birth of Israel was the horror unimaginable of the European Holocaust. And Furtado says this in one sentence, which I thought was so well written; “the allies,” that is to say America, Britain and France and Russia, World War II. “The allies may have won the war, but the Jews certainly lost it.” But the Jews certainly lost it. That is the defining moment and the basis on which we have to look at Israel post Second World War. And if you like, for those who are not Israelis, and maybe there are some listening who aren’t Jewish, like me, then this gives you an insight into the Israeli mindset. They cannot afford, as Furtado said, to lose the war in ‘48, '49. They can’t.
And that has remained true ever since. They can’t afford to lose the war. One final comment from Furtado’s book, which I thought was worth sharing, is this one; again, this book is the Histories of Nations. It only has a short bit on Israel you’ll appreciate, but it’s a book that I always go back to because it’s so well written and it’s so precise and concise, is the right word, precise and concise, that it enabled me to read it and to cover a lot of ground. “The tragedy was that Jewish nationalism arose at approximately the same time as Arab nationalism.” Now, we’ve talked about Arab nationalism in the past, and of course we’ve talked about Jewish nationalism. But what an interesting thing to say. “The tragedy was that Jewish nationalism arose at approximately the same time as Arab nationalism. And they began to struggle over the same parcel of land. Although the territory of the Arab world was vastly greater than that of Palestine,” that is to say British Palestine, “the price of Jewish control of its own territory,” that is Israel itself, “was to live in a permanent state of siege.” And that gives us another insight into Israeli attitudes, which are based upon the fact that Israel not only sees itself in a state of siege, but in reality has been in a state of siege from 1949 onwards, not necessarily every year with open conflict, but certainly with a simmering conflict the whole time.
Sometimes bursting into horrendous life, as we’ve seen in '23, '24 with Gaza and Hamas. So to the events of the period, 1949 to 2024, I’m using another book, which is one of these books again, which takes different countries and gives a piece about them. It’s called The World in Conflict. Again, it’s on my blog, and it’s by John Andrews. And it’s again, a book that I go back to for the same reasons that I go to Furtado’s book, for concise pieces of writing. And here he is writing, “one of Israel’s major notable characteristics is being in a state of actual or threatened war ever since the proclamation of the country by David Ben-Gurion in May, 1948.” In a state of actual or threatened war. What did Furtado say? “A state of siege.” Use what phrases you like, but it all boils down to the same thing. I said, the David of Israel and the Goliath of the Arab world, however you want to describe it. And everyone describes it in different ways, but the message remains the same. Following then the 1948, '49 War, the next big event is the Six-Day War in June, 1967. But there are some events in between that we need to look at. In between these dates, Israel passed in 1950, the Law of Return, which granted all Jews, wherever they were, the right to Israeli citizenship and the right to settle in Israel. This ended the hated British mandate system of quotas on immigration. We talk now in the West about quotas of immigration from wherever in the world they come from, into Europe and into Britain. And quotas don’t really work. And certainly, the British system of quotas for Palestine never worked.
And that is dealt with firmly by the Law of Return in 1950. In 1956, Israel finds itself linked with Britain and France, the two old mandate imperial powers involved in what is usually called by us in the West, “the Suez Crisis.” The Suez Crisis, because the Egyptian president, Nasser, occupied the canal zone and nationalised the Suez Canal with threats at France. And in particular, Britain saw to its trade routes through the canal to Asia. Otherwise, you had to go round the Cape of Good Hope. And for Israel, it was an opportunity to secure bigger borders. All of this had been planned in advance. It’s three countries, France, Britain, and Israel. Israel began the whole exercise, the whole military exercise by advancing into the Sinai Peninsula, forcing the Egyptians back. Gordon Kerr, in his book, The Middle East writes this. Again, it’s the short circuit, some of these talks. “The British and French…” At this point, that is when Israel has invaded Egyptian territory. “The British and French at this point issued an ultimatum demanding that both armies, Israel and Egypt, withdraw troops to at least 10 kilometres from the canal. Nasser refused.” Giving the British and French the casus belli to invade. “The British and French began an aerial bombardment of Egyptian positions. It looked inevitable that the overwhelming strength of the Israelis, British and French would quickly prevail.
And even when the two great Cold War rivals, the United States and the Soviet Union joined forces to condemn the assault on Egypt, France, Britain and Israel carried on regardless. Soon British and French paratroopers occupied the Suez Canal and the canal zone, but it was against international opposition.” International opposition might well have been able to have been seen off, but Britain and France found themselves cut off from international money funds and resources. And although Israel had during the course of the war advanced through Gaza to reach Sinai, and had occupied the East Bank of the Suez Canal, because of international pressure, France and Britain were forced to withdraw, and Israel was forced to withdraw from those territories it had conquered. The United Nations sent in an emergency force, so called, the UNEF, United Nations Emergency Force, to occupy Sinai as a buffer state or as a buffer between Israel and Egypt. Gaza was returned to be administered by Egypt as it had been administered by Egypt before. Not returned to Palestinians, and Palestinians hadn’t held it. It had been administered by Egypt before, and now as the Israelis retreated… Sorry, I shouldn’t have used that word, it gives them military… As the Israelis were forced to withdraw politically, then Egypt goes back to administering Gaza. And why did it fail?
Well, there’s been lots and lots of books, particularly in Britain over the whole nonsense in one way, from a British point of view, of the Suez Canal. Saying it marks the end of British imperialism, it was all to do with not caving in to Nasser as we’d caved in in the 1930s to Hitler, all of that. But the truth of the matter was France, Britain and Israel did not have US support. And Kerr says this, “Egypt launched surprise attacks on Israeli troops…” Sorry, I’ll find the right place, I’m on the wrong place. Here we are. “Having recently denounced a Soviet invasion of Hungary,” same time, same year, “to quell the Hungarian revolution, the United States felt it would be hypocritical to support the Franco-British action. Eisenhower also feared that to support it would throw the Arab states into the hands of the Russians. Therefore, Eisenhower joined in an unlikely partnership with Russia to condemn the attack.” Eisenhower has his eyes focused firmly on the geopolitics of the situation. He dare not allow Russia to get an upper hand in the Middle East. He did not want a war. And anyhow, deep down, Eisenhower is deeply opposed to what he sees as British and French imperial colonial action. Something out of the 19th century is how the American government viewed the Suez Crisis. So that further emphasised, worsened, choose your verb, the situation between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In 1966, Israel ended martial law, which had been opposed… Imposed upon Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians in Israel since 1948. Emphasising, and I don’t need to say this to any of you listening, emphasising the democratic nature of the Israeli state.
However, Arabs chose to portray Israel. And then we reach 1967 and the extraordinary events of the so-called Six-Day War. A culmination, if you like, of growing tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbours. And Israel launched a preemptive strike. On the opening day, the 5th of June, 1967, the Israeli Air Force launched a strike on the Egyptian Air Force, and hit it whilst the Egyptian Air Force was on the ground destroying it within three hours. But in addition to Egypt, Israel faced both Jordan and Syria who were in a united military pact with Egypt. Israel’s primary purpose was to reopen access to the Red Sea, which Egypt had closed. To mobilise… To deal with the mobilisation by Egypt of troops in Sinai and in Gaza. Underneath all of that is the Israeli belief that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were closing in, and to hit them before they hit it. From the 6th to the 8th of June, Israel captured Gaza, Sinai from the Egyptians, and they also took East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan having shelled West Jerusalem. And I’m very conscious today, everyone knows far more than I do. West Jerusalem was Israeli, East Jerusalem was Jordanian. The Jordanians fired, shelled West Jerusalem. The Israelis moved in to East Jerusalem and took East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan.
On the 9th of June, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria. All of these areas were threats to the security of Israel as an independent nation, not least with some of them, like Golan Heights, being extremely dangerous for Israel in terms of the geography. Geography always plays a large part in history. And indeed, in any settlement of the Middle East, next week’s talk, the geography is important, as indeed are water supplies important. And we will come to that. We will mention water supplies shortly in this talk, but it’s a major issue for next week as well. In all, the Six-Day War was a resounding success for the Israelis. When ceasefire came on the 10th of June, I remember being up at Oxford as an undergraduate in 1967, and I had an Israeli friend who was following this as it were day by day. And I think most of us were following it day by day as well. Israel had 800 casualties, but the three Arab nations had around, we have no precise figure, around 20,000 casualties. It was an overwhelming Israeli victory. An Israeli victory that really put a marker in the sand, “don’t come near us because you will bite off more than you can chew.” The war left Israel with Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. And in 1980, Israel declared Jerusalem, quote, “the complete and united capital of Israel.” Sinai was to remain Israeli until 1982. The Gaza story becomes more complex, and I’ll reach that. But at the end of the Six-Day War, Israel had gained Gaza, which in the end, it does not hold for eternity.
It gains the West Bank, which it does not hold in its entirety for eternity. It gains the Golan Heights and it gains East Jerusalem, both which it holds. But these areas that I’ve mentioned, Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, remain a core geographical and political issue between Israel and the Arab nations, whether states or terrorist Arab groups. These are questions that will have to be dealt with in any lasting Middle East peace settlement. One, to deal with the security of Israel, and two, to meet some at least of the Arab demands. That’s next week’s talk. As it takes two to tango, it takes two to make a settlement. As we saw, Israel had accepted Resolution 181 from the United Nations, which was rejected by the Arabs. If there’s ever going to be a settlement, it has to be a two-way settlement agreed by both parties. In November, 1967, United Nations passed a further resolution, Resolution 242, which called for, quote, “Israel withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict, and for the termination of states of belligerency and respect for an acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area, and the right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? Those of you who like me, read law, will know and recognise that’s a lawyer writing that. It doesn’t really bear any relationship to the political reality. Six years after that, that is to say 1973, comes the Yom Kippur War, the Day of Atonement.
The Day of Atonement, when Egypt and Syria sought to retake the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights by preemptive strikes. Believe it, because it was the day atonement, the Israelis would be unprepared. So rather like the story told by the British Royal Navy, if you ever want to attack the British fleet, then you should do it on the anniversary, 21st of October, every year, of Nelson, or you should actually do it on the 22nd because the Nelson dinners would be awash with drink for senior naval officers the night before, and no one would be in a position to man or command a ship on the 22nd of October. I’ll just let you… It’s possible that you might think that your country might one day be involved in a war with Britain, and that’s a handy piece of advice. But this didn’t work, of course, as we well know. The Yom Kippur War comes at the peak of the Cold War. Now, whereas in 1956, America was nervous of Russia, not least because it had crushed the Hungarian revolt, now they’re taking a different attitude. Russia backs Egypt and Syria in this Yom Kippur War, whilst America backs Israel. We’re talking here about war material being supplied to both sides. So in a sense, these countries, Israel and America… Israel to America, Egypt and Syria to the USSR, are vassal states of America and the USSR. They are fighting the Cold War without involving the principals, that is to say principals, A-L-S, of Russia and America in the war. This is a proxy war being fought in the Middle East by America and by Russia. I’ve written here simply, “the Jewish-Arab conflict has now become part of the wider geopolitical conflict.” If I turn to Gordon Kerr again, he summarises the events in this way, I think quite helpfully.
He writes this, “Egypt launched surprise attacks on Israeli troops in the Golan Heights and the Sinai Desert. They enjoyed great success in the Sinai, overrunning Israeli positions. And meanwhile, the Syrians seized part of the Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, appealed to the United States for help. And President Nixon obliged by sending military supplies. The Soviets did the same for Egypt. Cold War tensions were heightened when the Russians announced they were about to send airborne divisions to help the Egyptians. And at one point during the conflict, America was placed on nuclear alert. The closest,” says Kerr, “that the world had come to nuclear warfare since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. A ceasefire was declared on the 25th of October, by which time Israel had managed to reoccupy the Golan Heights and seize most of the Sinai.” Now comes a further major attempt at resolution of the crisis. The so-called Camp David meetings and talks of 1978 in the States. The outcome of which is the Camp David Accords. The framework of the Accords provided for the establishment of an autonomous authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Egypt. So you can forget Sinai. Sinai’s gone back to Egypt, but it has a relationship, Israel and Egypt now, which over… What shall I say? Overarches the conflict between Jew and Arab. But the situation in Gaza and the West Bank isn’t really resolved. It remains in a sense, unresolved. Oh, King Hussein of Jordan refused to sign the agreement as long as Israel remained in the West Bank, which of course it was doing.
Craig Davis writes this, “the agreement,” that is the Camp David Accords, “drove the Arabs into two camps. Boman, Sudan and Somalia continued to support Egypt while Jordan and the rest of the Arab nations severed relations with Egypt. The Arab League suspended Egypt’s membership from 1979 until 1989. For its part in the peace process, Egypt received substantial military and economic aid from the United States.” Its cash that’s king. “Most Arab countries, therefore sourced Sadat…” Nasser had been… Sorry, Nasser had died in 1990. Sorry, 19… What am I saying? Nasser had died in 1970. “They believed Sadat had sold out to American…” Well, Craig Davis says, “American interest.” In reality, American cash. Two years later, Islamic extremists assassinated Sadat. Those who seek peace, particularly from the Arab world, place themselves in the line of sight of those opposed to any settlement with Israel. And Sadat is just one of a number who died as a consequence of that. So we’re now in the 1980s and nothing has been resolved in terms of a settlement, in terms of assurances to Israel of security. And in June, 1982, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon after it had come under attack from the PLO, Palestine Liberation Organisation, which was based in Lebanon. We’ve said before, Lebanon is a mess. Lebanon isn’t really a country at all, it’s never come together. And you can’t blame Britain, it’s France that made a complete mess of the Lebanon. France had made a complete mess. One outcome of this clash in 1982 was the establishment of a Shia militant, extremist militant group called Hezbollah, supported by Shia Iran.
Today, Hezbollah is a significant player in the Middle East, and as we talk, we know that, and some of you in Israel listening may have suffered from bombardment from Hezbollah in the last week. It’s a military player of, as I said last week, far more effective military outfit than Hamas, but it’s also a political player, rather more adept political player than Hamas. For example, in Lebanon, it runs social services, schools and hospitals paid for with Iranian money. And thus it has a lot of support, obviously, from the Shia community in Lebanon, but actually from other communities in Lebanon as well. And that’s the problem, is it not, with both Gaza and Lebanon, that the two… Well, more than two, but to keep it simple, Hezbollah and Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which are anti-democratic terrorist organisations as far as the West is concerned, and a threat not just to Israel, but to international order in general. Nothing ever gets easier. Can it get worse? Well, of course it does get worse. We now reach the period of the First Intifada, 1987 to 1993. Intifada is an Arabic word, which is translated in many different ways, but basically means an uprising. An uprising of people… Of Arabs against Israel. The First Intifada, 1987 to 1993, beginning in Palestine in December '87, I read this. Oops. “In Israel, an Israeli was stabbed to death in Gaza while shopping. The next day, four Palestinian Arabs died in an automobile accident in Gaza. Rumour spread that Israel had taken revenge for the earlier murder. Rioting erupted in Gaza and soon spread to the West Bank.” No geographical link, of course, as we’ve seen before, between Gaza and the West Bank, but it happened.
We live in an age where I sneeze, and you can hear me in… Well, I sneeze now, and you can hear me, not only in Israel, but on the far side of America. “The next day, four Palestinians died in an automobile accident in Gaza. Rumour spread that Israel had taken revenge for the earlier murder. Rioting erupted in Gaza and soon spread to the West Bank. Youngsters and adults threw rocks and Molotov cocktails, burned tyres and blocked roads. Israeli soldiers fired rubber bullets, live ammunition and tear gas and demolished homes in an effort to try to stem the violence. More than 1,400 Palestinians died in the uprising, including children and teenagers.” The problem with this sort of warfare, which is urban warfare, is that there are unintended consequences in who dies. Collateral damage is the rather euphemistic term used by Americans and adopted here in Britain. Collateral damage. At this juncture of the Intifada, Hamas, the PLO and Islamic Jihad, all pressed for the creation of a Palestinian state. In 1993, the Oslo Accords in Norway ended the First Intifada and set up a mechanism to resolve the problems of the Middle East. And I can turn to those, reading what they are. This is Craig Davis, “in 1992, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had assumed power on the promise to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres initiated a series of secret talks with Arafat and the PLO that culminated in the Oslo Agreements of 1998.” He also records, “basic tenets were these; one, Israel recognises the legitimacy of the PLO.” Wanting to establish a Palestinian state, West Bank and Gaza.
“The PLO, secondly, recognised Israel’s right to exist.” Very different from where Hamas is today. “Thirdly, Israel was to extend a degree of autonomy to the West Bank. Fourthly, Israel was to withdraw from Gaza within five years. Sixth, Israel and the PLO were to continue future talks.” Well, forget about that. And indeed, Israel did withdraw from Gaza, and indeed there was a settlement of the West Bank. Now, the settlements of the West Bank, I guess lots of you listening in Israel will say, “oh my God, he isn’t going to go through that, we know all this,” but there may be people listening who do not know that what happened on the West Bank, it was divided into three areas. One area, the PLO would be in full control. That area included the cities of Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin. And amounted to some 18, 18, 1-8 percent of the territory of the West Bank. The Israelis retained full control of about 60%. And there was a third area where the PLO had administrative control, and Israel, security control, making up the remaining 22%. Israel came out of it in control of 60%. The area of the West Bank is 2,180 square miles. So those of you who want to work out the square mileage, 18% PLO, 60% Israel, and about 22% PLO administered, Israel secured. Israeli settlements continued illegal under international law. The West Bank remains a major issue in 2024. Gaza, which is much more in our thoughts in 2024, has an area of only 141 square miles, it’s tiny. The West Bank is 2180 square miles, Gaza, 141 square miles, and they’re a long way apart. And both West Bank and Gaza have seen fighting continue from that date to this. Settlement? Hardly. In 1994, Israel and Jordan finally signed a peace. Now, this peace is interesting, because I read, “the treaty clarified the borders of the two countries and their water rights out of the river, Jordan.”
This is a really important step in the history of the world as water becomes a rare resource in the modern world of environmental change, and there will be wars fought over water. This agreement between Israel and Jordan acknowledged water rights. Moreover, Israel and Jordan pledged that neither of them would allow a third country to use its territory to stage an attack on the other. Well, they said a third country, but indeed it means in a sense, a terrorist. Now, Jordan has withdrawn from the West Bank. This has divided Palestinian Israel. Jordan has moved away. Syria has moved away from the Golan Heights. But this agreement is important because it takes Jordan out of the picture of the West Bank, at least at the moment. But it also resolves, at least at the moment, issues about water supply. And don’t underestimate this problem of water supply. The following year, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated… I told you, assassinations. Is assassinated by an Arab opponent of the Oslo Accords. Assassinations are horrendous political weapons. In the year 2000, Israel did withdrew… Sorry, withdraw its last troops from Lebanon. But in 2000, for five years, a second Intifada begins after tensions reach boiling point once more. Usually dated to the moment that Ariel Sharon visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, to the Jews, the Temple Mount. And Craig Davis writes up this in the following way, “Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount for Jews in 2000, sparked a set of Palestinian riots called the Second Intifada.
Other factors also played a part in the Intifada. One, Palestinians were frustrated with stalled peace talks. Two, it had proved… As had proved successful in the previous Intifada, limited use of violence and civil unrest could strategically garner international sympathy and forced Israel to the bargaining table.” One of the extraordinary things about the current Israeli-Hamas is how propaganda in the West, particularly amongst the so-called educated young in universities, has been very pro-Hamas with women and gays leading the support for Hamas. Something it… Like many people, we can’t get our heads around this. “Thirdly, Palestinian opponents to peace process like Hamas and Islamic Jihad seized the opportunity to rally support to their cause. Finally, those who were discontented in Israeli… In Israel, fellow Jews, exploited the uprising as a political weapon against Barack’s attempts at peace concessions, which they said would resolve nothing.” See, it’s like one of these, I don’t know if any of you have ever had a water mattress or been on one in a spa. I’ve been on one in a spa. They’re quite frightening things, really? You lie on them and the water sort of moves around inside. And this is the problem here. You said, ah, now I’m comfortable here, I’ve resolved the problem with Israel, so now I just have to concentrate on all this stuff bubbling over this side, and then suddenly it bubbles up on the other side again. You can’t ever get a flat mattress on a waterbed, it keeps moving.
And the players are different, left and right, top and bottom. And in this case, it is the Israeli discontented who oppose a settlement. Israelis on the West Bank, perhaps, in particular. In 2001, the Israeli government fell and Sharon became leader. On the 12th of December, 2005, the last Israeli settlers and soldiers withdrew from Gaza. PS, Gaza was left with an infrastructure and an economy laid by Israel. Something that in the present conflict has been as far as I can see, almost entirely ignored in the West. Ignorance is a dreadful thing. Well, truth is the first casualty of war, it is said. And certainly this true fact has been forgotten as kids in Britain, America and elsewhere scream for justice for Palestine from the river to the sea. In 2006, there’s more trouble on the Lebanon-Israel border, again with Hezbollah. And two years later, in 2008, comes a Gaza war. Israel strikes at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip in 2008. But in 2009, the war ended with a unilateral ceasefire from the Israeli side. In 2012… In 2012, Donald… Sorry… Well, in 2000… I missed that piece out, it’s not important. In 2017, Trump, now president of the United States recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In 2019, he signed a presidential proclamation to officially recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. What Trump might do was he to win a second term, I have to say, your guess would be as good as mine in what he might do. And now we come to the horror of the 7th of October, 2023, and the massacre imposed on Israeli soil by Hamas, when, as far as I can find out, the latest figures are something in the region of 1,200 individuals were killed.
Others were taken captive, many of whom have died subsequently by torture in Hamas underground cells in Gaza. The world was shocked by such an inhumane, mediaeval attack, and by the comments made by Hamas militants, which were equally mediaeval in what they said and in the actions they took. It was a horror moment. And Israel invaded Gaza. I guess 100 percent of those listening tonight feel that Israel had no choice but to retaliate. How disappointing that having left Gaza in 2005 with all of these infrastructures in place, as we’ve seen the story unfold this year, we’ve seen that hospitals were used by Hamas as headquarters buildings, as buildings in which to store arms. The propaganda war, I think you can say in the West, has been decisively lost by Israel, it has been won by Hamas. And that’s a really difficult thing to get one’s head around. Why should a sovereign nation, which takes action against its own troops, if found wanting, and for goodness sake, in Britain and America, our hands are covered in blood with what our troops have done in Afghanistan. But the story isn’t like that. If I started by saying that the story was a David and Goliath story, then I’m not sure how I describe the present story in terms of the West, in terms of Israel and Hamas. It’s as though it’s been turned upside down, the story. And can we see an end in sight? Well, with difficulty. What would an Israeli victory equal? It wouldn’t equal the end of Hamas, they would just rebuild with the Iranian money elsewhere. And the actual attack by Israel on Gaza will have sent many young men and women flying to support a new Hamas, call it what you will, they may change the name again.
And if Israel manages to push Hamas out of Gaza, how on earth is it ever going to be put in a situation where it has an infrastructure and more importantly, an economy? Of course it could, we know that, it’s being done. But who is going to have the money to do that? It’s not going to be Israel alone, that is for certain. But it doesn’t end there, does it? Because this is a serious moment in the story of Israel because we have Hezbollah operating out of Southern Lebanon and hitting targets in Northern Israel, and Israel responding by sending troops into Southern Lebanon. And let me remind you that Hezbollah is one, a more effective military unit than Hamas. And two, is Jihad, and thus supported by Iran through religious conviction as well as political. Whereas Hamas is Sunni. So there’s unresolved questions in Southern Lebanon. Lebanon is a mess. Lebanon is just as much a mess as Gaza. How do you resolve the question of Lebanon? Well, one answer is it goes to Syria. Yes, but you can’t do that in 2024. How can you hand Lebanon to Syria? It’s not possible. And then of course, there’s the ability to strike at a distance. And the Houthis in Yemen have done so, leading to the attacks on the Houthis by the Israeli Air Force at Houthi targets, military targets which are targeting Israel. And that brings Yemen into the equation. And then behind the scenes, always behind the scenes in 2024 is the spider at the middle of the web, and that is Iran. There are no easy answers. But the first thing that one has to do to reach a settlement is to have some common agreement as to the facts of the case.
Now, as I said at the beginning, I’ve given a story which is from an Israeli point of view largely, but if you were negotiating, then you would need someone in one room to say to those who were the negotiators, the Americans, presumably, to say, this is how we see it in Israel. But there has to be another room in which Arabs say, well, these are how we see the very same events from an Arab view. And then to get somehow to bring the two sides together to create a common view of the history, to get to a common answer. But you can’t get to a common answer or a settlement whilst you have a group like Hamas who want to destroy Israel, from the river to the sea is a terrible, terrible, but has turned out effective propaganda phrase. Now, I’m going to leave it there, unsatisfactory though it is. And I will attempt, can I emphasise the word attempt, not to come to any conclusions but to try and lay out, and I hate that American use of the word “pathway.” I’m not going to talk about a pathway to peace. I don’t think it’s meaningful. But to look at the situation of how we get from here to where we want to get. But I’m reminded of the story of the Irishman who’s asked by an Englishman on holiday into Ireland, “how do I get to this village?” Well, he says, “I wouldn’t start from here if I was you.” Well, that’s not helpful, and that is exactly the position we are in. I look forward to seeing you next week, and I’m sure I’ve got lots of comments as well as questions. And last week was… Oh, they’re down at the bottom. I don’t know why it goes from the top to the bottom. Let me just see if I can find some of those questions. Thanks for listening. Those of you who are leaving, have a good rest of the day. Let’s see where these have gone.
Q&A and Comments:
Q: Shelly; “does Hamas really want the replacement of Israel with an Arab state or with a strict Islamic state?”
A: Well, with a strict Islamic state, obviously, they don’t see a difference between the two.
Carly; “what is the badge on your tie?” Oh, hello Carly, my badge. I’m a freeman of the city of London, so the badge is the arms of the city of London. Students… When I became freelance, two students said, “oh, you must be a freeman of the city of London. You’ve worked in London, you can become a freeman.” And they both stood as my guarantors and we had a very nice lunch to celebrate and it was a very nice occasion.
“Here is the link to William’s blog.” Thank you Rita.
Bernard; “although a two state solution is the only way to a permanent peace, October the 7th has made sure that can has been kicked down the road for some time.” Bernard, I can’t disagree with that, but it’s something I’ve got to take up next week. No, I can’t disagree with that. You’re obviously right.
Q: Carol; “were the Jews at war in World War II? I thought they were a Nazi pawn, so they didn’t.”
A: Carol, I’m not sure, I think if you’re going back to the Jews lost the war, it didn’t mean they were in the war, it meant they suffered the Holocaust. It may have been a victory over Nazism, but the Jews had lost because they had lost so many people in the Holocaust. That’s what the quotation meant.
“Israel has an existential… Has an existential situation since the War of Independence.” Hillel, you say that Israel is living in a state of siege also today. However, it has a state of peace with its most serious adversary, Egypt, since 1979. And a state of peace with Jordan since 1994. It is the Palestinians and the West Bank who are in a state of siege occupation from the state of Israel. The Gaza Palestinians also felt that they were in a state of siege from both Israel and Egypt, which does not justify in any way Hamas’ murderous attack. That’s why I’m saying you’ve got to put people in separate rooms to come to somehow a conclusion on the history. I think it’s not true to say… I would not say that Israel is not in a stage of siege. I would say that the Yemen attacks of the Houthis, that Hezbollah and Lebanon place it under siege, that Syria remains an enemy, and that the real enemy is Iran, who for all we know, could launch rockets at Israel. So I don’t accept… Egypt, yes, I do accept that, and I accept Jordan, but those are not the countries we’re fearful of. The countries we’re fearful of are Lebanon, which isn’t a country, Syria because of its government, Iran because of its government, and Iran’s proxies in the region.
Jonathan; “as an Israeli, I believe Israel is no longer the little Goliath facing a powerful Goliath. With bold leadership, Israel could have done much more to move from a state of perpetual war. The siege is used by Netanyahu as a strategy to keep Israelis in constant fear. These policies have made Israel less secure than ever, as we saw on March 7th of October.” That, Jonathan, raises a question which I’ve got to look at next week, which is the position of Netanyahu and the position of the sectors on the West Bank. And that’s when I said that situation is confused by, is not straightforward black and white but has nuances, then the political leadership of Netanyahu’s one of them, and the settlements on the West Bank are another.
Michael; “Israel’s current security and existential fears is derived essentially from the fall of the Shah of Iran in ‘79, which the West naively allowed.” You can well make a case for that with the rise of Iran. Yes, you can, but you cannot escape the question of Palestinian Arabs as well. But you are right. This is why any sort of discussion next week of it becomes complex. I do agree, Michael, with what you said, but it isn’t the only issue by far.
Q: Shelly; “US support Britain and France in the Suez Crisis. Did US not have an economic interest keeping the canal out of Nasser’s hands?”
A: No. They were much more interested in not allowing Russia to take control. No, Eisenhower was desperate to keep Russia out of the Middle East. He was also desperate to keep the moral high ground vis-a-vis his attacks on Russia’s seizure of Hungary after the revolt. And he’s also definitely anti-imperial. And thus his basic DNA is anti-French and British imperialism.
Jonathan; “in '66, Israel ceased constraints on the Arab population who were Israeli citizens. In '67, Israel was the occupation of the West Bank… The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began. So there was only one year that Israel was not restricting the rights of Arabs, first within Israel and then on the West Bank.” Yeah. How do I answer that? I have to answer that in terms of that the West Bank is a different and very complex situation in itself with Jewish-Arab conflict. And is different from as it were, Israel proper.
Jonathan; “the French version of Resolution 242, said that Israel was to withdraw from the territories. The English version made no mention of the. That makes a lot of differences because of the territories, means all the territories.” The French during this situation were extremely devious. And the British government, extremely stupid. Remember that Prime Minister Eden was high on drugs for most of the time as Suez, and should not have been in a situation to make the sort of decisions he did.
Schakel; “remember that PLO set up forces, and many of us think that the main Arab aim is to destroy Jewish state, and a Palestinian state is of lesser importance. It isn’t even mentioned in Resolution 242.” No, I think you have to accept that the extinction of a Jewish state would mean the arrival of a Palestinian state. But since '67, the world has changed. And we also face Islamic fundamentalism in Europe as well as in the… As well as in the Middle East. We have seen three independent Islamist MPs elect… Sorry, four, elected in Britain at our general election whose sole statement on their election manifesto was to support Hamas and an independent Palestine. The whole thing is spread across the world.
Q: Marilyn; “does any Arab country other than Egypt actually recognise the state of Israel?”
A: Someone will answer that for me. I’ve got a feeling the answer is yes.
“And those who seek peace,” says Carol, “on…” Sorry, I’ve lost Carol. Where are you? “And those who seek peace on the Israeli side find themselves too in danger.” Absolutely. Absolutely. That’s exactly what I was saying. When assassinations become a political weapon, it’s horrendous.
Stewart; “in November '95, he was assassinated by a girl, Amir, an extremist Jew, who opposed the terms of the Olso Accord. Amir was convicted of Rabin’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.” Absolutely right. Yes. If I said something different, I didn’t mean to. If that was me, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that. I think one has to say that zealots, that’s not a good word to use, that extremists in any situation make matters worse, not better. Where there might be legitimate divisions, extremists make those divisions far worse.
Oh, thank you Marilyn. I don’t know why I used the analogy of the water bed, it suddenly came to me and probably I shouldn’t have done, but I’m glad at least one person, maybe just the rest of you think, “well, my God, he’s losing the plot.” I’m not entirely, but I may be.
“By the way,” says Carol, “Israel now use desalination plants for water. So the problem of water with Jordan is less in conflict.” Yes, desalination plants are a distinct way forward. I wrote an article in a magazine, a regional magazine in Britain, oh, some 15, 20 years ago, arguing for desalination in Britain. Because we’re surrounded by water and we certainly need desalination. It isn’t cheap, but absolutely typical, is it not, of Israeli ingenuity that they can do that. And we just sit back here in Britain and moan when we have shortages of water, it’s nonsense. Right. Thank you Barry, I appreciate that.
“I’m from Judy.” That’s nice. “I may have missed your mention, yet before Israel successfully destroyed the Egyptian Air Force, Egypt, had closed the Straits of Tiran.” No, sorry, I didn’t mention the Straits of Tiran, sir, I said they blocked the Red Sea. And you are absolutely right. I simply used a phrase that didn’t use the words Straits of Tiran, but I used the Red Sea. I thought for those that weren’t familiar, it would be clearer to them what I was talking about.
“UN forces placed there after '56 in order to ensure free shipping through Suez was simply removed. That Egypt’s request by Agne Carl, the UN secretary general, with…” Oh Lord, I’ve lost it. “UN forces placed there after '56 in order to ensure free shipping through Suez was simply removed at Egypt’s request by Agne Carl, UN secretary general without murmur. The threats by the Arab states promising Israel’s destruction between the closure of the Straits of Tiran and the commencement of the war was of course a great fear by I would say most Jewish people.” Yeah, and I absolutely agree. Jacqueline; “elections held in Gaza in 2006, resulted in the defeat of the PA, which Hamas took control of Gaza. Many PA people were murdered by Hamas.” True.
Ruth; “history keeps repeating itself.” It does. And in terms of the Middle East, since 1919 in the end of the Ottoman Empire, we seem to be on a circular treadmill. And at some stage, someone has to take the initiative to jump off the treadmill. Oh, make… No, I didn’t mention the Abrahamic Accords. I could have done, I didn’t. My apologies. Sometimes in trying to condense things, some things get missed out.
Ralph; “both Hamas and Hezbollah are as much of a threat to Israel as to most Arab countries. It’s worth looking at their origins and the impact of the Iranian revolution, perhaps facilitated by US and British in helping to depose the secular Mosaddegh.” There’s a lot we could talk about. There’s a lot, Ralph, we could talk about if we… Maybe I will have an opportunity to talk about modern Persian and Iranian history. Maybe we have to wait until the Ayatollahs are overthrown.
Q: “How on earth is Assad still in power in Syria? He isn’t Sunni or Shia is he?”
A: No, he is not. And well, he is in power like all dictators are in power. It’s the gun. It’s the gun.
And Ron says; “he’s Alawite and he’s still in power despite Yarrow’s spring though to force of arms that he massacred hundreds of thousands.” Yeah. And his wife is British, and he served as an optician. Optician? I think I’m right in saying in Britain, and I had a student, and she may be listening tonight, who went to him when he was practising in London for new glasses. What a funny world we live in.
Estelle; “I was in Gaza shortly before it was given to the Arabs in return for peace. It was a beautiful seaside resort with many villas which were vacated by their owners. Instead of enjoying the garden, shops and other facilities, the first thing the incoming people did was to reduce everything to rubble.” That is a story, Estelle, that I’ve been told by others. And that is what I meant about the destruction of the… They had an infrastructure, they had an economy. It could have worked. The economy based on agriculture and tourism. It could have worked, it could work now. It would be a fantastic place as a place for tourism, for instance. But we are a million miles away from that.
“Can I disagree with what you’ve put there?” No, I can’t. Hang on, somebody’s put, “we don’t have statesmanlike approach.” I’ll find it. Where is it? Where is it? “Currently,” says Marilyn, “there is not statesman… There is not statesmanship with a vision to create peace.” No. And I rather think that we are in a downward slide in terms of American power, and that could be very serious for the Middle East. If I’m very controversial, we are in a position of sliding American power, sliding Russian power, and rising Chinese power. Can China provide an answer to the Middle East? I’m not sure.
Oh, Monty; “Diameter of the Bomb, a documentary titled from a poem by Yehuda Amichai.” Sorry if I pronounced that incorrectly. “This is about a suicide bombing during the Intifada, well worth seeing.” So everyone, Diameter of the Bomb, a documentary. Thank you Monty for that. I keep losing it, I’m getting overexcited tonight. Where are we? There was somebody who asked another question.
“Any thoughts on the Abraham Accords? It seems Iran doesn’t want Israel and Saudi getting together.” Okay, that’s the second person who’s asked. I will promise I will include them in what I’m doing… I better make a note. I’ll include Abraham Accords. And up to this point, I haven’t written, I always do things at the last moment, and particularly with this course because things are changing by the hour. I may have done it anyhow, but I will definitely do it next week in the final wash-up.
Ron; “most peacemakers accept that there can never be a common narrative and it is better to focus on the future rather than to try to agree on the past. Also, just to mention, after Arafat turned down the offer at Camp David, Clinton issued the Clinton Parameters. Ultimately, if there is ever to be a two state solution, it would basically be along the line to the Clinton Parameters that were rejected by the Palestinians.” And I will definitely be talking about the Clinton Parameters next week, but I’m not in agreement when you say better to focus on the future. You can’t focus on the future without having a common… In my view. Sorry, I should say definitely in my view, not in everyone’s view, without having a common view of the past. It simply won’t work. Not unless you have a victor and a loser. But we can’t have a victor and a loser in this situation, it’s got to be two victors. And so therefore I don’t agree with the point you make at the beginning, Ron, but by no means accept my criticism. You are and more than entitled to be critical of what I’ve just said.
Marcel; “there was such an… This was such an all important talk. No words can express my…” Oh, well thanks very much. No, no, no, that’s nice of you.
Ron; “just to add, there is talk again of a two-state solution. I wonder though why anyone thinks the Palestinians will accept the two-state solution that did not give them all of Jerusalem, including the Cartel area right to return.” Well, of course, originally the situation imagined on the Resolution 181 is that Jerusalem will be outside of either state, the whole of Jerusalem. And that is, again, a very difficult situation to be in. How do we take Jerusalem out now? If it was going to be taken out, it should have been taken out at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
Q: “I was in a Jerusalem Mall today,” said Beverly. “Every attendant in the stores I went into was Arab. Similarly, living in Haifa, it was a functional multi-ethnic city. Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians. Is there not a schism in our Times between the economic and political need to have wars in certain parts of the world and the civilian reality of just getting on with living everyday lives?”
A: That, Beverly, is a really important question, and it raises the issue of how terrorist organisations, e.g. Hamas, can manipulate a civilian population which clearly Hamas have done in Gaza with food supplies and so on, hospital entry, all those things. It’s also true in terms of how politicians, and somebody mentioned Netanyahu just now, how politicians use it. What you need is a politician, somebody used the word statesman or stateswoman, who is able to take the sort of view, Beverly, that you are giving us. That’s not… Am I on thin ice? But I don’t think I am. That’s not what comes over from Netanyahu’s statements.
Jacqueline, “I am very brave to do these talks on the Middle East.” May I add that if you were all present in a room, I don’t think I would be. I’d have that one of those things that searches under the table, to make sure no one had put a bomb there.
“Assad was an ophthalmic surgeon,” said… Oh, Bernard, hello. Thanks. An ophthalmologist. Monty says, oh dear, dear.
Monty says, “a rather myopic individual.” Oh, I’ll sure use that Monty, when I ever speak about it again, it’s great. Considering… What’s the time? Considering that Suez’ fees are a major contributor to the Egyptian Exchequer? Why is Egypt… So aqueous in blockade actions?“ Because they’re fearful of getting involved with Iran. Assad is an ophthalmologist, eye specialist not optician, which shows that academic education has little to do with morality. Oh dear. Whatever did you find out about me?
Q: "Social media has done so much harm, even the Gazans use it. Can it do any good in achieving peace?”
A: Oh, Judith, what a question to end on. I have absolutely no answer to that. Yes, it must have, but at the moment we don’t know how to use it. We don’t know how to combat false information on social media. And now that we have AI being used on social media, no one is clear. I read something about Kamala Harris on Twitter last night. I had no idea whether… It was a derogatory. Nothing scandalous, just derogatory about her actions. And I thought, I don’t know whether this is true or not. I don’t believe it is. Anyhow, on a Times radio, the Times newspaper now run a radio station in Britain, and I was listening to this. And someone said on that, a Britain talking to an American, “is this true or is it just fake news?” We are living in a very difficult world with fake news is all that one can say. But at the beginning of the war with Hamas, I don’t think Israel was helped in Britain by the Israeli spokesman here in Britain. He clearly needed training in media. He needed desperate media training. Since then, and we’ve had people in Israel appear on news, it’s been far better.
But again, I don’t think that ice is that thin because I’ve had Jewish friends in Britain say to me the same thing. I’m going to stop there. That’s the end of the questions. Thanks ever so much for joining in. Thank you to those people who said they welcomed it, and thank you to the person who said, “I think you’ve been very brave to do it.” In retrospect, I think I’d say no next time. Not really. We have to do difficult things as well as easy things. I will see you, I hope everyone, next week. My final meeting before I go on leave until the second week of September when I’m doing a four week course on slave uprisings, starting with Spartacus. And you all remember from a long, long time ago, the film Spartacus. I certainly do. But I’m going to talk about the history not the film. Okay, see you next week.