Arab/Israeli conflict

Introduction

Few conflicts stir as much emotion as the struggle between Jews and Arabs over the land known as Israel or Palestine. Both sides claim legitimacy — one rooted in ancestral history, the other in modern grievance. To understand the enduring tension, one must go beyond politics to examine intent, belief, and continuity.

The Jewish Claim: Ancestral Homeland Reborn

For Jews, the land of Israel is not merely a territory; it is the center of their spiritual and national identity. Over 3,000 years ago, the Hebrew people established kingdoms in this land, with Jerusalem as their capital and the Temple as their religious heart. Despite repeated conquests — Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and Islamic — the Jewish people never fully left.

At every point in recorded history, there were Jewish communities living in the land — in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron, and Tiberias. Medieval pilgrims, Muslim chroniclers, and Ottoman census records all testify to continuous Jewish presence. The Diaspora dispersed most Jews, but not all. Those who remained kept the flame of connection alive, while those abroad prayed daily for return.

The cry *“Next year in Jerusalem”* was not metaphorical; it was an expression of an unbroken covenant. When modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century, it did not create a new claim — it revived an ancient one. The 1948 establishment of Israel was, in Jewish eyes, not a conquest but a homecoming after 2,000 years of exile and persecution.

The Arab Claim: A Story of Occupation and Displacement

For many Arabs and Palestinians, the creation of Israel represents occupation and dispossession. Arab populations had lived in the land for centuries under Islamic and Ottoman rule, identifying the area as part of the greater Arab homeland. When Zionist immigration began under the British Mandate, it was seen not as the return of exiles but as the infiltration of outsiders under European protection.

The 1948 war, which followed the Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan, resulted in mass displacement — known in Arabic as *al-Nakba* (“the catastrophe”). For Arabs, this was not merely a military defeat but a moral wound, reinforcing the perception that Western colonialism had imposed a foreign nation on Arab soil.

Intent and Continuity: Inclusion vs. Rejection

The contrast in intent defines the conflict. Israel’s founding documents proclaimed equality for all inhabitants regardless of faith. Arab citizens of Israel today vote, serve in parliament, and hold high office.

By contrast, Arab and Islamic leaders repeatedly declared that Jews would not be allowed to live among them.

• In 1937, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, declared that *“not a single Jew will live in Palestine.”*
• Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser vowed to “throw the Jews into the sea.”
• Successive Arab League declarations rejected not just Israel’s borders but its very existence.

This reveals a deep asymmetry of intent:

• Jews sought coexistence in their ancient homeland.
• Arab leadership sought exclusion, viewing any Jewish sovereignty as illegitimate.

Arab Pogroms Against Jews

The Arab rejection of Jewish presence was not limited to rhetoric; it often erupted into violence and organized massacres long before Israel’s establishment.

Early 20th-Century Violence

• Hebron Massacre (1929): Sixty-seven Jews were murdered by Arab mobs incited by false rumors that Jews planned to seize the Temple Mount. The ancient Jewish community of Hebron — present there for centuries — was wiped out overnight.
• Safed Pogrom (1929): In the same week, another Arab mob attacked the Jewish quarter of Safed, killing and looting homes and synagogues.
• Jerusalem Riots (1920, 1921): The Mufti and other clerics used sermons to incite anti-Jewish riots that left dozens dead and hundreds injured.

Broader Middle Eastern Pogroms

Anti-Jewish violence extended far beyond Palestine:

• Baghdad – The Farhud (1941): Over 180 Jews were murdered in two days of rioting inspired by Nazi propaganda and local clerics. Jewish homes and businesses were looted, women assaulted, and synagogues destroyed.
• Tripoli and Cairo (1945–1948): Anti-Jewish pogroms erupted across North Africa and Egypt following the UN Partition vote. Hundreds were killed, thousands of Jewish properties burned.
• Aden (1947): More than 80 Jews were massacred in the British-controlled port city after anti-Israel demonstrations turned violent.

These pogroms made clear that the issue was not simply the State of Israel’s borders, but the rejection of Jewish existence within Arab societies.

The Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands (1948–1970s)

Following Israel’s independence in 1948, anti-Jewish hostility across the Middle East escalated into a coordinated campaign of expulsion, dispossession, and forced migration.

Over 800,000 Jews were driven out of Arab countries between 1948 and the early 1970s — a population comparable in size to the Palestinian refugees. Jewish communities that had existed for over two millennia vanished within a single generation.

Examples of Expulsions

• Iraq: Jews were stripped of citizenship, businesses seized, and thousands smuggled out in *Operation Ezra and Nehemiah* (1950–1951).
• Egypt: After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Nasser’s regime expelled thousands of Jews, confiscating their property and labeling them Zionist enemies.
• Libya and Yemen: Entire Jewish populations fled under violent persecution, leaving behind synagogues, schools, and homes that were later destroyed or converted.
• Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria: Rising nationalism and Islamist agitation forced most Jews to emigrate to Israel or France despite centuries of coexistence.

Most of these refugees arrived in Israel penniless, having been allowed to take only a suitcase or a few coins. Israel absorbed them as citizens — while the Arab world, by contrast, kept Palestinian refugees stateless to sustain a political cause.

The near-total ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands contradicts the narrative that Israel’s creation alone caused displacement. In truth, two refugee populations were created — one Arab, one Jewish — but only one remains unresolved.

Two Truths That Collide

Both claims hold emotional and historical weight:

• The Jewish claim rests on ancient continuity and rightful return.
• The Arab claim rests on memory of displacement and resistance to foreign dominance.

But while Jews never ceased to live in the land, Arab leaders sought to ensure that Jews would never live *among* them. This conflict is thus not merely about land — it is about who belongs, who may live, and whose past is legitimate.

Intents of both Parties

The Intent of Israel’s Founding

From its inception, the modern State of Israel was intended to be multi-ethnic and multicultural. The 1948 Declaration of Independence explicitly called for coexistence, promising “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex.”

Jews envisioned a homeland that could serve as a refuge from centuries of persecution while still respecting the rights of its Arab inhabitants. Indeed, many Arabs who remained in Israel became full citizens, voting, serving in parliament, and participating in civic life.

The Arab Rejection of Coexistence

In contrast, Arab and Palestinian leaders consistently rejected the idea of a Jewish presence in any part of the land. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, declared in the 1930s that “not a single Jew will live among us.” This ideology became a rallying cry that framed the struggle not as a political disagreement, but as a religious and existential rejection.

Following the Mufti’s example, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser famously vowed to “throw the Jews into the sea.” Later, Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders repeated similar rhetoric, portraying peace not as coexistence but as a stage toward eventual elimination of Israel.

The Asymmetry of Intent

The contrast is stark: Israel’s intent was inclusion; Arab leadership’s intent was exclusion. While Israel integrated Arab citizens, the surrounding Arab nations expelled or marginalized their own Jewish populations—over 800,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab countries after 1948.

This fundamental asymmetry—between a state that accepts minorities and movements that reject them—is at the moral core of the conflict.

The Question of Coexistence

Can Jews live in peace within Muslim-majority societies? History provides troubling answers. From the persecution of Jews in Yemen and Iraq to the massacres in Hebron (1929), the pattern of intolerance has deep religious and cultural roots. The rise of ISIS and other Islamist movements revealed how deeply such hostility can manifest when religious ideology is taken to its extreme.

If Jews could not live safely in Muslim lands for centuries—and if even today, Jewish presence is unwelcome in most of the Middle East—how can one expect Israelis to entrust their security to promises of peace without real change in mindset?

Religious and Ideological Roots

The hostility toward Jews in much of the Arab and Islamic world is not purely political. It has religious and ideological foundations that long predate the creation of Israel. Understanding these roots is essential to understanding why peace has remained elusive.

The Qur’anic View of Jews

The Qur’an contains verses that portray Jews in both neutral and negative terms. While some verses acknowledge Jews as “People of the Book,” others describe them as cursed for disobedience and treachery. For example, Qur’an 5:60 refers to those whom God “turned into apes and pigs,” a passage historically interpreted by many scholars as referring to Jews.

Islamic exegesis (tafsir) and later commentaries reinforced these depictions, often emphasizing Jewish rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood as proof of inherent enmity toward Islam. This theological framing laid the groundwork for centuries of distrust and discrimination.

The Dhimmi System

Under classical Islamic law, Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands were given the status of dhimmi — “protected people.” While they were allowed to live and practice their religion, they were subject to restrictions:

Payment of the jizya tax

Prohibition from bearing arms

Social and legal inferiority to Muslims

The dhimmi system institutionalized second-class citizenship and reinforced the idea that Jews could live under Islam but never as equals.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, drew heavily on both sources. During World War II, he aligned himself with Nazi Germany, broadcasting antisemitic propaganda in Arabic and calling for the extermination of Jews across the Middle East.

The Modern Ideological Continuum

Contemporary Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah draw directly from these theological foundations. Their charters cite Qur’anic verses describing Jews as enemies of God and Islam. For example, the Hamas Charter (1988) declares:

“The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.”

Such statements are not political exaggerations; they are theological affirmations rooted in centuries of interpretation that sacralize hostility toward Jews.

The Challenge for Reform

A meaningful peace requires confronting these doctrinal issues honestly. While some Muslim scholars and thinkers have begun reinterpreting the relevant texts in the spirit of coexistence, mainstream institutions like Al-Azhar University have yet to issue a clear repudiation of antisemitic interpretations. Until theology evolves, politics alone cannot heal the divide.

Attempts at Peace

Overview

Throughout the Arab–Israeli conflict, numerous efforts have been made to end hostilities and establish lasting peace. While some succeeded and others collapsed, each attempt reveals deep contrasts in psychology, strategy, and intent — especially between leaders such as Anwar Sadat and Yasser Arafat.

Major Peace Attempts

UN Partition Plan (1947)

• Proposal: Divide Palestine into two states — one Jewish, one Arab — with Jerusalem under international control.
• Jewish Response: Accepted, despite limited territory.
• Arab Response: Rejected, refusing to recognize any Jewish state.
• Outcome: Immediate Arab invasion following Israel’s declaration of independence.
• Reveals: Early contrast — Jewish pragmatism vs. Arab rejectionism.

Camp David Accords (1978–1979)

• Leaders: Anwar Sadat (Egypt), Menachem Begin (Israel), Jimmy Carter (U.S.).
• Terms: Israel withdrew from Sinai; Egypt recognized Israel; full peace treaty signed.
• Outcome: Success — Egypt regained Sinai and established diplomatic ties.
• Reveals: When an Arab leader addressed Israel’s existential fears, peace became possible. Sadat was later assassinated for his courage.

Oslo Accords (1993–1995)

• Leaders: Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, Bill Clinton.
• Terms: Mutual recognition; limited Palestinian self-rule; framework for final status talks.
• Outcome: Collapsed amid suicide bombings and Rabin’s assassination.
• Reveals: Israel offered historic concessions, but Palestinian leadership failed to renounce violence.

Camp David II (2000)

• Leaders: Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, Bill Clinton.
• Terms: Up to 97% of the West Bank, all Gaza, shared Jerusalem, compensation for refugees.
• Outcome: Arafat walked away; Second Intifada followed.
• Reveals: Arafat preferred struggle over compromise.

Annapolis Conference (2007)

• Leaders: Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Abbas, George W. Bush.
• Proposal: Land swaps and a Palestinian state.
• Outcome: Talks collapsed amid internal Palestinian division (Fatah vs. Hamas).

Abraham Accords (2020)

• Parties: Israel with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.
• Terms: Normalization of relations without resolving the Palestinian issue first.
• Outcome: Functional peace based on mutual interests — security, technology, economy.
• Reveals: Arab states moving beyond ideology toward pragmatic coexistence.

Why Sadat Succeeded

1. He Broke the Arab Taboo

Sadat shattered the “Three No’s” of the 1967 Khartoum Summit: *No peace, no recognition, no negotiations.* In 1977 he addressed the Israeli Knesset, declaring: > “You want to live with us in this region. We welcome you in peace and security.” This act of empathy disarmed decades of fear.

2. He Addressed Israel’s Core Fear

Israel’s trauma was existential — fear of annihilation. Sadat recognized this and offered reassurance, not rhetoric. By affirming Israel’s right to exist, he made territorial compromise acceptable.

3. He Framed Peace as Mutual Dignity

Sadat demanded every inch of Sinai — not as charity, but as respect for Egypt’s sovereignty. Israel could accept that; it did not threaten survival.

4. He Acted Alone

Sadat ignored Arab consensus, visiting Jerusalem alone. He paid with his life, but secured Egypt’s future.

5. He Found a Trustworthy Partner

Menachem Begin, a former hardliner, trusted Sadat’s sincerity. Personal trust made political peace possible.

6. He Was Strategic, Not Sentimental

Peace was a tool to rebuild Egypt’s economy, regain Sinai, and reassert leadership — not surrender.

7. He Paid the Ultimate Price

Sadat’s assassination confirmed his courage and transformed him into a martyr for peace. Egypt has never returned to war with Israel.

Why Arafat Failed

1. Withholding Legitimacy

Sadat recognized Israel publicly; Arafat recognized it only under pressure, while his movement continued to glorify “resistance.” Israelis saw this as deception.

=

Egypt's Sadat accomplished peace

In 1979, Egypt signed a landmark peace treaty with Israel, becoming the first Arab state to officially recognise the Jewish state. Under the treaty, Israel agreed to withdraw its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula and respect the land boundary, in return for Egyptian recognition and peace. Egypt also guaranteed freedom of Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran. Israel fulfilled these major commitments within the agreed time-frames, thereby proving that a negotiated, legally binding peace was possible and that Israel kept its part of the deal. While the peace remained “cold” in social and cultural terms, the fact of long-term compliance underpins arguments that peace with Israel is feasible when mutual commitments are made.

Peace cannot emerge from mere treaties or border adjustments. It requires a transformation of intent—from rejection to recognition, from hatred to coexistence. Israel’s founding vision remains open to that future. The challenge is whether the Arab and Islamic world is willing to embrace it.

Would you like me to add a next section about religious and ideological roots (e.g., Islamic theology toward Jews, dhimmi status, Qur’anic interpretations, etc.) or move to the Western / international reaction side (e.g., UN, colonial legacy, global media narrative)?

Conclusion

Israel’s rebirth stands on the foundation of an ancient people reclaiming their ancestral home. The Arab response, shaped by religious rejection and political humiliation, continues to frame this return as an occupation. True peace demands confronting these twin realities — and acknowledging that one side returned home while the other felt dispossessed.

Only by reconciling both truths — Jewish continuity and Arab grievance — can the region hope to move beyond endless repetition of history.