“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about territory. The solution is ‘land for peace’….”
Published: 15 July 2010 Briefing Number 262	Click to Print

Summary:  Most people assume that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is about territory, and could be resolved by a ‘land for peace’ deal:    “If Israel gives the Palestinians the West Bank land, the Palestinians will agree to make peace.  It’s a conflict about occupation. Everyone knows what a final agreement will look like – we just need to press the parties to reach it”.  This Briefing challenges these assumptions.  We highlight eight aspects of the conflict which are not related to territory.  Instead they are ideological. Territorial compromises will need to be made for a lasting peace deal.  But no-one should think that territorial compromises alone will be sufficient to bring peace.  It is the ideological drivers of the conflict that need to be addressed.  This Briefing highlights eight ideological drivers among the Palestinians and the wider Arab and Muslim world which are fuelling the conflict. Of course, many would argue that there are ideological drivers in Israel which make a two-state solution harder to achieve: eg a belief that Israel is above criticism, that it can use military force to impose a solution, that Israel only wants to give the Palestinians an unviable mini-state etc.  But there is a big difference.  The allegations against Israel are fundamentally false, yet they are very public, shape perceptions, and already fill masses of media space and commentary.  By contrast, the ideological drivers which shape Palestinian and wider Arab attitudes are virtually never mentioned in public discussion.  As a result, Israel alone is seen as the obstacle to peace. Our purpose in this Briefing is to correct this unbalanced view. Eight ideological drivers of the conflict…. 1. The Israeli leadership supports the concept of a Palestinian state, but  ‘moderate’ Palestinian leaders firmly reject the concept of a Jewish state, and the legitimacy of the Jewish right of national self-determination in the land of Israel 2. Israel recognises the need for territorial compromise and landswaps. But the “moderate” Palestinians demand Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 1967 lines, and recognition of those as final borders, for symbolic not practical reasons 3. Israeli society has relinquished an unreal, maximalist vision of retaining territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.  But in seeking a ‘right of return’, the Palestinians have not relinquished their unreal, maximalist vision 4. A culture of incitement and fomenting of hatred towards Israel is embedded within Palestinian society 5. The narrative that Israel was founded by a crime in 1948 – the naqba – and that the Palestinians have been passive victims ever since, is prevalent, even though both claims are false, and it makes peace impossible 6. Israel upholds Muslim religious rights in Jerusalem; but the Arabs do not respect Jewish religious rights in the city 7. Israeli territorial withdrawals in recent years have fuelled Palestinian extremism and violence, rather than fostering attitudes of conciliation, and Hamas has made clear that it would fire missiles and rockets from returned West Bank territory into Israel 8. The Iranian-led ‘resistance’ front – including Hamas - is seeking long-term victory over Israel, not peace via  territorial compromise.  They see Israeli territorial withdrawals as surrenders and signs of eventual Israeli collapse from within This Beyond Images Briefing takes each of the above statements and expands upon them.

1. The Israeli leadership supports the concept of a Palestinian state, but the Palestinian moderates reject the concept of a Jewish state, and reject the legitimacy of the Jewish right of national self-determination in the land of Israel

Most Israelis now accept the idea that a Palestinian Arab state should be established on Israel's borders.  There is a debate about its size, its future borders, and Israel argues that it must be demilitarised (see point 7 below). But almost everyone in Israel accepts the concept of such a state.      
By contrast, most Palestinian ‘moderates’ do not accept the concept of a ‘Jewish state’.  At most they grudgingly acknowledge the de facto existence of a state called Israel in which Jews currently live.   
Self-styled ‘moderate’ Palestinian leaders including Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad and Saeb Erekat repeatedly reject the idea of a Jewish state (see Beyond Images Briefing 226).  They cannot bring themselves to recognise the legitimacy of the Jewish peoples’ national right of self-determination in the land of Israel.  Such recognition is at the very heart of any sustainable two-state solution and coexistence.
This is not a territorial or a ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.      

2. Israel recognises the need for territorial compromise and land-swaps. but the Palestinian ‘moderates’ are attached to complete withdrawal to the 1967 lines, and recognition of those as final borders, for symbolic not practical reasons

Most Israelis now recognise the need for territorial compromise, land-swaps, and repartitioning of the land of historic mandatory Palestine. Indeed, in 2008 the then Israeli government offered the Palestinians the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank, with some land swaps
But the Palestinians want it all - there is no willingness to compromise one inch on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines.  While their leaders give polite speeches behind closed doors which sound conciliatory, they do nothing in public to prepare their people to move beyond the ‘all or nothing’ approach.  They rejected the “100% equivalent” offer not because it was territorially inadequate, but because symbolically they could not be seen to be acknowledging Jewish or Israeli claims anywhere in the West Bank. 
See the quote below from Israeli negotiator Udi Dekel on the Palestinian mindset which drives this attitude.   
This is not a territorial or a ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.
(For more on Israel’s 2008 offer see Beyond Images Briefing 225).

An Israeli negotiator’s insight into the Palestinian attitude: “The practical aspect of territorial compromise interested them less….”

Udi Dekel was head of the Israeli Government’s Negotiations Task Force in the Government of Ehud Olmert, and was involved when Israel made its 100% equivalent offer in 2008.   He says (reported in Hamodia, 28 January 2010):

3. Israeli society has relinquishing an unreal, maximalist vision of retaining territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, but the Palestinians have not relinquished their unreal, maximalist vision of the ‘right of return’

Israeli society has relinquished the idea that Israel could hold on to all the West Bank territories.  For many in Israel it has been a painful and bitter realisation.  But it has been recognised.  Retaining the whole of the West Bank was an unreal and undemocratic vision – and for many Israelis an immoral one, too.  Only an extreme fringe in Israel still retain the belief that it is possible, and they have no political support. 
But the Palestinians still hold on to their vision of a mass return of refugees to Israel.  They are not relinquishing this vision, even though it is just as maximalist and unrealistic (besides being, to most Israelis, completely unfounded and unjust).    
In private meetings with Western journalists and diplomats, some moderate Palestinian leaders reportedly acknowledge that the “right of return” cannot be fulfilled in the way that the Palestinian people have articulated it.
But they do not go further and state this in public: nor do they educate the Palestinian people on this basic reality.  
This is not a territorial or ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue. 
(For more on the right of return see Beyond Images Briefing 34.  For how Israel has relinquished its maximalist vision see Beyond Images Briefing 161.  For more on Palestinian attitudes, see Beyond Images Briefing 227)

4. A culture of incitement and fomenting hatred is embedded within Palestinian society

To incite collective hatred for Muslims, or for the Palestinians, is a criminal offence in Israel.  
But to incite hatred for the Jewish state, and spread blatant lies about its people, and its intentions, remains mainstream on Palestinian TV, and elsewhere within Palestinian society, despite claims by moderate Palestinian leaders that it is being curbed.
(To glimpse the nature of this incitement see the evidence which is published and analysed on www.palwatch.org).
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas recently paid warm, public tribute to the man behind the Munich Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes in 1972.
This is incitement, and completely irreconcilable with respectful coexistence.  
This is not a territorial or a ‘land for peace’ issue. It is an ideological issue.

5. The narrative that Israel was founded by a crime in 1948 – the naqba - and that the Palestinians have been passive victims ever since – is a false narrative, but makes peace impossible

Israel is portrayed generally within Palestinian culture and media as an illegitimate usurper, implanted on Palestinian land after the second world war.  Israel caused the naqba – catastrophe – in 1948, and owes the Arab world an apology, reparations, and restoration of the Palestinian heritage and homeland.  Israel was, on this view, created by crime, and is fundamentally illegitimate.  
For both Palestinian moderates, and Palestinian rejectionists, the naqba narrative still prevails – a narrative of unconditional Palestinian victimisation, and Israeli ethnic cleansing. This is no basis for peace.
The prevalence of this narrative is not a territorial or ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.

6.  Israel upholds Muslim religious rights in Jerusalem; but the Arabs do not respect Jewish religious rights in the city

Since 1967 Jerusalem has been under Israeli control. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims pray regularly at the Muslim holy places in the Old City of Jerusalem.  
But when the Old City of Jerusalem was under Jordanian sovereignty between 1949 and 1967, no Jews were allowed to pray at the Jewish people’s most holy place, the Western wall.
And very recently, spokespeople for the Palestinian Authority have again characterised Jewish efforts to pray in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City as racist expansionism.
These statements indicate a fanatical disregard for the most basic religious freedoms of the Jewish people. 
This is not a territorial or ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.
(For more on the Palestinian rejection of Jewish religious rights in Jerusalem, see Beyond Images Briefing 254) 

7. Israeli territorial withdrawals in recent years have fuelled more  extremism and violence, rather than fostering attitudes of conciliation, and Hamas has hinted that it would exploit a future Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank to threaten Israel with missiles and rockets from any territory it controls

Israeli territorial withdrawals in recent years have not created moderation, but instead fuelled extremism. 
Hizbollah was emboldened in South Lebanon following Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, and has now built up a very heavily armed ‘state within a state’, in violation of UN Resolution 1701 and other Resolutions.
Likewise, Hamas was emboldened in Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and is also building up a very heavily armed, authoritarian mini-state.
Israel’s adversaries do not respond to Israeli territorial concessions by moderating their stance, building conciliation and reciprocating.  Instead, they portray such concessions as a sign of Israeli failure of resolve, and as a milestone on the road to eventual victory, and its eventual collapse.
Furthermore, Hamas spokesmen have hinted that they would exploit a future Israel withdrawal from the West Bank to threaten Israel with missiles and rockets from any territory which it controls.
This is not a territorial or ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.    
(See more on Israel’s Gaza pullout and Palestinian extremism, see Beyond Images Briefing 150. On the misconception that a West Bank withdrawal would automatically bring peace, see Beyond Images Briefing 17 – “If only Israel would end the occupation….”)    

8. The Iranian-led ‘resistance’ front is seeking long-term victory, not territorial compromise

Finally, Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah share a long-term vision of so-called ‘resistance’ to Israel.
They are not aiming for territorial compromise and a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.  Their aim is to 'resist' Israel until it becomes isolated, and until its eventual demise. 
They exploit Western efforts at so-called ‘engagement’ with them, and past Israeli territorial withdrawals, as signs of their eventual and total victory over Israel. 
This is not a territorial or ‘land for peace’ issue, but an ideological issue.
(For more on ‘resistance’ doctrine see Beyond Images Briefing 229).

Related Beyond Images Briefings

‘The Palestinians are victims of Israel. Discuss….’
Beyond Images Briefing 196, 4 June 2007.

‘Peace with Israel as capitulation…. The root cause of the conflict’
Beyond Images Briefing 190, 28 February 2007       

‘Palestinian statehood: fifty years of rejected opportunities’
Beyond Images Briefing 45

‘The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ongoing Arab denial of Israel’s legitimacy’
Beyond Images Briefing 249, 10 December 2009

‘Moderate Palestinian leaders believe in a two-state solution….’

Beyond Images Briefing 225, 25 December 2008