Middle East conflict: causes, impacts, and regional dynamics

Middle East Conflict

As an Israeli citizen, I often find myself awestruck at our present situation. The needs and desires of people in my country are not unlike those of most people. We desire to live and work in safety; we want have peace with those around us; but we also want to maintain our traditions and our heritage as we see fit. Israel has again and again suffered attacks because of our mere existence. And is it so strange that we are not willing to give up our state simply because someone else considers it unjust. We have survived so many things before now, how can we betray the memory of those that survived atrocities by giving up our just claim to a nation.

At the core of Israel's problems is its geography. And this is true in more ways than you might think. Only a fifth of the land in Israel can be used for farming, so we must maintain relations with other nations. Because of the climate and nature of the land we live in, it is very important that we are able operate on an international level and share imports and exports with other countries.

Also, Israel is a very urban country. Most of my country's population lives in cities, and this unfortunately can be a serious problem. These urban environments make it very easy for enemies of Israel to commit acts of terrorism. These large urban environments make it far too easy for people to find crowds and walk among them unnoticed.

And when terrorist attacks take place outdoors in crowded areas it keeps people away. Countless store and restaurant owners have told stories of how their business will be cut in half in the wake of a suicide bombing. Some of them have been forced to hire guards; some of them cannot afford guards and are simply forced to close. Not to mention the constant fear present when out in public. Particularly in the wake of an attack, the fear is palpable and can have definite effects on local communities and economies.

In negotiations with the PLO, I feel it is important that first and foremost some way must be found for the fighting to stop. As long as the Israeli people are forced to bury their friends and family, including innocent women and children, how can we ever really address the needs of the Palestinians? They must call off their attacks so that true communication can be established. We can not design the existence of a new Arab state if we are doing it at gunpoint.

If the attacks on Israel can be stopped then we could immediately begin to build an agreement wherein a new state could be hewn from the area now being fought over. For Israelis, we simply want the attacks and the violence to end. It is in a way both the least that we can ask for and all that we want at the same time.

Now beyond simply ending the violence, there are many factors to be considered when actually formulating a plan for Palestinian/Israeli co-existence. We would not be willing to give up certain areas we now hold, and we definitely would not be willing to completely give up our hold on sites we consider holy. If mutual co-existence means that we do not have a right to the lands of our ancestors, then mutual co-existence is not a possibility.

It is also obvious that the Palestinians must be given a state of their own. The idea of ignoring their requests completely is simply unrealistic at this point. In the past people have suggested pushing them into Jordan or some other area, but we now understand that this will simply not work. Negotiations must focus on primarily stopping the violence against Israel, and secondarily forming a working and just Palestinian state.

Currently, the leadership of Israel has moved in what international critics see as a more hard-line approach. Gone are the days of offering Palestinians anything we could in order to put an end to violence. Modern Israeli leadership has taken the stance that we must fight back and end the violence before we can truly negotiate. And this approach makes sense to many Israeli citizens, but as we have seen throughout history it is not very often that armed opposition has brought about a peaceful settlement.

But it would be unfair to see Ariel Sharon and his Likud party as nothing but war hungry hardliners. In fact, their opposition in the most recent elections could be considered by many to be more unyielding than Mr. Sharon. Benjamin Netanyahu, Sharon's opponent in the most recent election, has often expressed his feeling that a separate state for Palestine should not be established. It very well may be this idea that cost him the election against his bitter rival.

Many Israeli citizens like myself have come to the realization that even though it may not seem like the best option for peace, we have little choice but to accept the reality that this must be done. There is so much international pressure, both close and far, as well as Palestinian outcry, that this must be considered to be the best option both sides have for a peaceful resolution.

In the recent election, which was itself marred by bloodshed, Sharon carried 55.8% of the vote, while Netanyahu could only garner 40.8%. This decisive victory for Sharon certainly hinged on his foreign policy and more importantly on his views on the Palestinian situation. His Likud party, which could be considered center/right by most political standards, has certainly found common ground with the average citizen in Israel.