[fblike]
October has been a bloody month in East Jerusalem. Palestinian youth, responding to rumors that Israel is planning to take over the Temple Mount, revered as a holy site for Jews and Muslims, are clashing with Israeli security personnel and launching random, “lone wolf” attacks on Israeli civilians. In response, the Israeli government has imposed movement controls and other preventative measures, but critics contend that this will serve to exacerbate tensions rather than produce a lasting solution. Some experts contend that Palestinians are engaging in a third intifada, or uprising, and this would be the second time in two years that Palestinians are reacting violently against the Israeli government. Frustrated at their political leadership, Israeli settlement expansion, and the lack of progress toward a two-state solution, it is believed that some Palestinians are responding through violence to bring greater international attention to their plight.
This topic brief will explore the causes of the recent unrest between Palestinians and Israelis, explore Israeli responses, and then explain why it is unlikely that the causes of the violence will be solved in the near future.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Causes of the Third Intifada
If you draw a question about the recent unrest in East Jerusalem, it is good to link it to previous uprisings by the Palestinian people. The first intifada took place between 1987 and 1993 and saw agitation by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an effort to secure greater international support for a Palestinian state. The unrest culminated in the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington D.C. whereby the Palestinian Authority was created to give the Palestinians some domestic leadership and made the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) the main negotiating partner of Israel. A second intifada took place seven years later in 2000 and ran through 2005 whereby Palestinian militant organizations such as Hamas used suicide bombers and shootings in public places to terrorize Israelis. Israeli military forces responded by violently breaking up Palestinian protests and demolished the homes of families that had a loved one commit an act of terrorism. The second intifada was born out of the failures of U.S. President Bill Clinton to broker a lasting peace deal at the Camp David Summit in July 2000 and it ended with Israel’s decision to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Last year, commentators spoke of a “silent intifada” that was triggered by Israeli and Palestinian kidnappings and murders of young children. Although sustained violent incidents were averted, clashes between both sides left more than 2,000 people dead, most of whom were Palestinians.
What has marked this supposed third intifada is a string of “lone wolf”-style attacks by Palestinians toward Israeli security personnel and citizens. The Atlantic explains on October 18 that thirty-four Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since September, seventeen of which were deemed as alleged attackers. Haaretz on October 19 reports that in addition to the deaths, an estimated 1,829 people have been reported wounded by live fire or rubber-tipped bullets and hundreds more have been affected by tear gas that Israeli forces have used to disperse Palestinian protesters. The mode of attack by Palestinians on Israelis has been the use of knives and the attackers have been young. The Global Post reports on October 17 that this outbreak of violence is different in the previous intifadas in that young Palestinian men and women are participating in attacks. The lack of sophistication with weaponry may reflect that militant groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas are not exercising a lot of control of the operations since bombs and other high-powered weaponry requires greater planning and coordination. The attacks have set Jewish Israelis on edge, though, as they fear going out in public and for the safety of their children.
Commentators dispute what is causing the current violence. The Atlantic article previously cited explains that rumors of Israel’s plan to take over the Temple Mount, considered to be Judaism’s holiest site, is a primary cause of the unrest. The dispute over the Temple Mount is that it is also the location of the al-Aqsa Mosque, deemed as Islam’s third-holiest site. Under the status quo Jews cannot go and worship at the Temple, although they are allowed to visit. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied that it is in any way violating this policy, which The Atlantic writes on October 16 has been in place since Israel seized control of East Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967. The problem is, though, that right-wing Israelis, notably those of very conservative religious sects, wish to pray at the Temple Mount and some right-wing politicians have also made visits. This has heightened the fears of Palestinians that Jews are going to try to deny them access to al-Aqsa. Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders such as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have exacerbated the tensions. The Washington Times explains on October 18 that Abbas has warned Palestinians not to let the Temple Mount be defiled by the “dirty feet” of Israelis and The Jerusalem Post explains on October 18 that Abbas was recently criticized for claiming that Israeli officials murdered a thirteen-year-old boy who was actually proven to be alive and at a hospital in Jerusalem.
A second theory on what is behind the violence is a sense of hopelessness among Palestinian youth. According to The Guardian on October 17, this younger generation of Palestinians is much more informed and globalized than previous generations and it is more sensitive to the humiliations of Israeli occupation of lands seized during the Six Day War. Younger Palestinians grew up at a time when there were still vibrant prospects for a peace process, but these hopes have dimmed in recent years. For example, since Netanyahu became prime minister for the second time six years ago, the hopes of a sustained peace process have dimmed. The Christian Science Monitor reports on October 13 that Palestinians are also losing faith in their leadership as Abbas has low approval ratings due to his inability to secure an independent Palestinian state. Couple this with growing international attention toward conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, the Palestinian cause is no longer receiving as much attention as it used to. The Global Post notes that younger Palestinians are much more divorced from interactions with Israelis as previous ones due to the fact that Israeli settlement construction in Palestinian lands has limited their freedom of movement. The lack of continual interactions have fueled an atmosphere of tension and recrimination, made even more potent by the fact that continual settlement construction on lands that are supposed to compose a future Palestinian state by Israel are eroding the hopes of young Palestinians for an independent future. As such, it is little surprise that younger Palestinians are resorting to violence as there is a feeling that conventional politics are not helping them achieve their objectives.
Israeli Responses to Palestinian Unrest
In the past, Israel has been accused of disproportionate responses to terrorist attacks. For example, in 2006 it invaded Lebanon in response to attacks from the Shi’ite militia group Hezbollah and was criticized for attacks that it launched near Beirut. Similarly, aggressive Israeli security measures have been indicted for only fueling further Palestinian violence. In light of the recent uptick in knife attacks, Israel has followed its usual pattern, with The Australian writing on October 19 that Israeli troops are encircling Arab neighborhoods near Jerusalem and blocking roads with concrete barriers. Such actions are limiting Palestinians freedom of movement, but the problem is that they affect the peaceful and militant and treat both groups as one and the same.
In addition, Al Jazeera reports on October 19 that Israel’s security cabinet recently passed legislation allowing security forces to besiege Palestinian villages and impose curfews on Palestinian communities that have one of their members engage in violence. Also, police are using wider “stop and frisk” powers that allow them to stop anyone without probable cause. Palestinian community leaders argue that such policies are racist, but Israel’s political leadership says that they are necessary to thwart attacks. Near Jerusalem, there are reports that Israeli police are making Palestinians lift their shirts to show that they are not carrying knives.
Concerns about the safety of Israeli children, who parents fear could be the targets of the intifada, have led to some municipalities passing discriminatory legislation. Newsweek reports on October 18 that at least four Israeli cities, including the capital of Tel Aviv, have temporarily prohibited Arab laborers from working in schools. Although Israel’s Interior Ministry has said that all of the nation’s cities should respect religious rights and not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, they have not called for the repeal of this policy. One of the dangers of such policies, though, is that they also affect Israeli citizens of Arab descent. Foreign Affairs on October 14 points out that over the last thirty years the number of Israeli Arabs that identify themselves as Israeli has fallen from 54.7% to 39.6%. It appears that more of these individuals are identifying as “Palestinian in Israel” or “Israeli Palestinian” as the percentage that identify as such have risen from 12.4% to 42.1%. Arab Israelis have been critical of Netanyahu’s government, especially its embrace of religious parties that are more militant, and their pressing concern is social and economic equality. Thus, the third intifada has the potential to drive a wedge between Israeli Jews and their fellow Arab citizens.
Finally, there are reports that Israel is using preventative tactics to thwart Palestinian demonstrations. Al Jazeera reports on October 18 that the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel is claiming that Israeli police are arresting Palestinians and Arabs before they can participate in demonstrations. If true, this would contravene Israeli law that prohibits the arrest and detention of individuals that have not yet committed a crime. The article suggests that nearly 200 Palestinian activists have been arrested before or during protests and that forty are still being held by Israeli authorities. Reports are also circulating that Israel is arresting, or threatening to arrest, the family members of demonstrators and that it is not honoring the rights of minors that it places in custody. The Jerusalem Post writes on October 15 that Israel’s international allies, notably the United States, are concerned about its responses to the recent attacks, with the U.S. claiming that it is worried about reports of excessive force by Israeli police.
The Difficulty of Finding a Solution
A major difficulty in resolving the ongoing intifada is rooted in the peace process itself. Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects the idea of one day splitting Jerusalem, and the Palestinians hope that one day East Jerusalem can be the capital of a new state. Furthermore, Israeli and Palestinian officials have long been divided over nagging questions about a future two-state solution. These include what the borders of the new Palestinian state would be, whether Israel would have to vacate all lands seized in the Six Day War of 1967 (some of which have been the site of extensive settlement construction by this point), whether the new Palestinian state would be allowed to have a military or any type of self-defense force, and whether Palestinians that were pressured to leave their homes in 1948 would be allowed to return. Of these disputes, the fourth is arguably the most contentious because Israel argues that if a Palestinian state was created that it would never allow Palestinians to return because the number of Palestinians that would do so would overtake the number of Jews in Israel, thereby denying Israel’s professed identity as a Jewish state. However, Palestinian leaders contend that a right to return needs to take place, saying that it is the only just solution. As indicated above, frustrations about the lack of the peace process over the last six years might be a contributing factor to the ongoing intifada, but unfortunately it does not appear that a larger peace agreement is imminent.
Another difficulty of a short-term solution to the tensions is that Israel does not want international intervention in the dispute. Last week France supported sending a United Nations mission to the Temple Mount in order to observe the ongoing dispute and provide future recommendations. However, The Jerusalem Post explains that this is opposed by Netanyahu’s government on the grounds that it could internationalize the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority wishes for the conflict to become internationalized out of the hope that it will bring greater pressure on Israel. For example, The Jerusalem Post on October 18 explains that Palestinian leaders allege that Israel is conducting “summary executions” of Palestinian civilians and that it plans to submit a complaint, with accompanying evidence, to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Netanyahu was critical of France’s recommendation last week on the grounds that it did not mention Palestinian violence, thereby posing the intifada as strictly a Jewish-inspired problem. Therefore, Israeli suspicions of international motivations means that the UN cannot play a helpful role in resolving the ongoing crisis.
The United States is often looked to as an arbiter of crisis in the Middle East, but during the Obama administration ties with Israel have been strained. President Obama is very unpopular in Israel, something that Netanyahu has used to his political advantage. Furthermore, Secretary of State John Kerry raised Israel’s ire last week by linking disputes over settlement construction to the ongoing intifada. Netanyahu has reiterated the argument to American officials that Israel is not taking steps to restrict the ability of Palestinians to worship at the Temple Mount. He is portraying Israel as a victim of unprovoked Palestinian aggression, but time will tell whether his message will carry the argument in a world that is increasingly sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.
Still, The Christian Science Monitor explains on October 14 that Netanyahu will have to do something to slow the growth of the intifada. Netanyahu’s political reputation is grounded in security issues, but the ongoing intifada creates the risk that he could appear impotent. Growing attacks on Israelis could also empower more radical parties, thereby making Netanyahu’s coalition increasingly unstable. For the time being, Israel is opting for aggressive steps to reduce Palestinian violence, but such measures may only encourage more violence as Palestinians and Arab Israelis become increasingly depressed about their plight and lash out violently against the status quo.