a historical perspective on the arab-israeli conflict and peace process

A Historical Perspective on the

Arab-Israeli Conflict and

Peace Process

A Curriculum for Modern World History

Teachers

www.icsresources.org

A Historical Perspective on the Arab-Israeli Conflict and Peace Process

A Curriculum for Modern World History Teachers

Last Major Update: June 2012

www.icsresources.org/edmaterials 2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3 LESSON I: CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND TO UNDERSTANDING ARAB-ISRAELI RELATIONS .............................................. 4

THE ARAB LEAGUE AND ISRAEL ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF ISRAEL AND ITS NEIGHBORS .................................................................................................................. 9 THE ORIGINS OF ZIONISM AND ARAB NATIONALISM ......................................................................................................................... 10 THE ORIGINS OF ZIONISM AND ARAB NATIONALISM: READING QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 14

LESSON II: BROKEN PROMISES MADE TO ARABS AND JEWS DURING WWI ........................................................................ 17 ZIONISM AND ARAB NATIONALISM: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 20 THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT: 1916 ........................................................................................................................................... 21 A LETTER FROM BRITISH HIGH COMMISSIONER SIR HENRY MCMAHON TO SHARIF HUSSEIN OF MECCA ............................................. 24 BALFOUR DECLARATION 1917 ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 US CONGRESS ENDORSEMENT OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... 26 THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT (JANUARY 3, 1919) ................................................................................................................ 26 EXCERPTS FROM A COMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE MCMAHON-HUSSEIN CORRESPONDENCE ........................................................... 28 PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON'S FOURTEEN POINTS .................................................................................................................... 30 ROLE CARDS FOR THE READERS’ THEATER.................................................................................................................................... 32 WHO DREW THE MAP?: A READERS' THEATER ............................................................................................................................... 33

LESSON III: THE BRITISH MANDATE AND THE 1948 WAR ........................................................................................................ 38 SOUTHWEST ASIA AND NORTH AFRICA BEFORE AND AFTER WWI .................................................................................................... 42 THE BRITISH MANDATE ................................................................................................................................................................. 43 THE SEPARATION OF TRANSJORDAN (1921) ................................................................................................................................... 44 WORLD WAR II AND THE HOLOCAUST ............................................................................................................................................ 45 UNDERSTANDING THE 1948 WAR THROUGH MAPS.......................................................................................................................... 46

LESSON IV: THE CONTINUING CONFLICT AND STEPS TOWARD PEACE (1967-TODAY) ....................................................... 52 THE 1967 WAR ............................................................................................................................................................................ 56 ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1967 WAR ............................................................................................................................ 57 AN OVERVIEW OF KEY EVENTS SINCE 1967 ................................................................................................................................... 58 A TIMELINE CHART OF MAJOR EVENTS IN ARAB-ISRAELI RELATIONS ................................................................................................ 64

LESSON V: THE HOPE FOR PEACE ............................................................................................................................................. 67 UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT AND GRAPHIC ORGANIZER ............................................................................. 72 THE WASHINGTON DECLARATION: ISRAEL - JORDAN - THE UNITED STATES; JULY 25TH, 1994 ........................................................... 76 THE BRIDGE OF PEACE ................................................................................................................................................................. 77 PICTURES OF THE PEACE BRIDGE.................................................................................................................................................. 78 SHEIKH HUSSEIN BRIDGE OFFICIALLY OPENED TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999.................................................................................... 79 ISRAELI AND ARAB WRITERS TO MEET AT SHEIKH HUSSEIN BRIDGE ................................................................................................. 81 QUALIFYING INDUSTRIAL ZONE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND JORDAN ........................................................................................................ 82 ISRAEL AND JORDAN COOPERATE ON CABLE LINK .......................................................................................................................... 83 TRADE BRIDGE AS A BRIDGE FOR PEACE ....................................................................................................................................... 85 THE FOURTH ISRAELI JORDANIAN BUSINESS MEETING .................................................................................................................... 87

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................. 89


Introduction This five lesson curriculum explores the history and background of the Arab-Israeli conflict and peace process. The curriculum is modular: lessons can be used sequentially over five class periods or as stand-alone lessons. Lesson plans occasionally include specific tips for educators depending on which option they chose. Each lesson is also modular. Every lesson contains an anticipatory set, two or three main activities, and a closing activity. These components were designed to be used together, but educators can pull out specific elements. This flexibility enables educators to customize this ready-to-use curriculum to meet individual time constraints, needs, and goals. Each lesson includes all of the necessary primary source documents, secondary source documents, maps, and worksheets for the lesson. These materials follow each lesson plan and their titles are listed on the lesson plan and on the table of contents. Lessons I and II provide the context for understanding Arab-Israeli relations by having students examine the geography of Southwest Asia and North Africa, the origins of Arab nationalism and Zionism, and the broken promises made to Arabs and Jews during World War I. Lessons III and IV provide an overview of Israeli-Arab relations from their roots in the British Mandate through the present. Lesson V examines the challenges and benefits of a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Words from other languages can be transliterated a variety of ways into English. The Institute for Curriculum Services has attempted to follow modern conventions whenever possible. Primary source documents have not been altered and may use transliterations that are no longer common. Various communities in the United States have strong opinions on the issues involved in this curriculum. In producing these materials, the Institute for Curriculum Services has made every attempt to include various points of view and to use scholarly sources and primary source documents to present a factual account of historical events. The Institute for Curriculum Services is dedicated to promoting accurate instructional materials on Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Please send questions, requests, or suggestions about ICS educational materials to [email protected]. The materials in this curriculum may be reproduced for classroom use or to share with other educators. When sharing the curriculum, please include this Introduction. Please download the latest version of this curriculum before using it. It is available at www.icsresources.org/curricula. ICS frequently updates, revises, and strengthens its materials. Sign up at www.icsresources.org/register to be notified of major updates, new materials, and events in your area. Please send questions, suggestions, and requests

The Institute for Curriculum Services is a joint project of the Jewish Community

Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.icsresources.org/curricula

http://www.icsresources.org/register


Lesson I: Context and Background to Understanding Arab-Israeli Relations

Materials Each student needs:

1) The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism 2) The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Reading Questions

The teacher needs:

3) A blank overhead transparency labeled “What We Want to Know” 4) Overhead transparencies of The Arab League and Israel 5) Overhead transparencies of Geographic Features of Israel and Its Neighbors

Note Please download the latest version of this lesson from www.icsresources.org/curricula. ICS frequently updates, revises, and strengthens its materials. The ICS website includes a variety of lesson plans, teacher’s guides, maps, and primary source materials. Most maps and images are in color if accessed through the website. All materials may be downloaded and shared. Sign up at www.icsresources.org/register to be notified of major updates, new materials, and events in your area. Please send questions, suggestions, and requests about ICS educational materials to [email protected]. Goals

1) Students will be able to describe the locations of Israel and Arab countries.

2) Students will be able to explain Jewish, Arab, and Muslim connections to Southwest Asia.

3) Students will be able to describe the origins and goals of Zionism and Arab nationalism. Instructional Design Anticipatory Set: I Know / I Want to Know

1) Instruct students to fold a piece of paper in half longitudinally, write the heading “I know” on the left side, and the heading “I want to know” on the right side.

2) Ask students to write at least three facts about the history of Arab-Israeli relationships on

the left side of the paper under “I know” and at least three questions about history of Arab-Israeli relationships on the right side under “I want to know.”




3) (optional) Have volunteers share a fact from their “I know” column. If students share opinions, use the opportunity to review the difference between facts and opinions and help them identify the reasons the statement represents an opinion rather than a fact.

4) Have volunteers share a question from their “I want to know” column. Write questions on

a blank overhead transparency labeled “What We Want to Know.” Save transparency for later use.

5) Collect folded sheets and use responses in the “I know” column as a formative

assessment. 6) Close with the following points:

a. The class will be learning about the origins and history of the Arab-Israeli conflict,

including the steps towards peace.

b. The peace process has had some major successes, but many unresolved issues – including Israeli control of some land claimed by non-Israeli Arabs and the refusal of many Arab countries and organizations to recognize Israel’s right to exist – remain.

c. Many people outside the conflict feel involved because of cultural or religious ties to

the area. The conflict has been the focus of worldwide media and diplomatic attention for decades.

d. Although the conflict is often portrayed in simple black-and-white terms, it is

extremely complex and cannot be properly understood without knowing the history of the area.

Topic 1: Geography

1) Ask students why it is important to discuss geography before studying the relationships of peoples and states in a region. Responses should reference both political and physical geography. Responses might mention that interactions are influenced by factors such as shared borders, natural boundaries, and natural resources.

2) Display The Arab League and Israel map. Explain that the Arab League is an

association of independent Arab countries that was formed in 1945 to promote cooperation among member states. Ask the class the following questions: a. Where are Arab League countries located? Responses should identify North Africa

and Southwest Asia.

b. Where is Israel located? Responses might identify Southwest Asia or the Eastern Mediterranean.

c. In what ways is Israel different than its neighbors? Responses should mention that it is not part of the Arab League and that it is smaller than most other states in the area.


d. Which countries on the map have participated in wars with Israel? Responses should identify: Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Note for teachers: Saudi Arabia and Yemen have not officially been at war with Israel, but they sent expeditionary forces to fight in the 1948 War.

e. Which Arab countries have not participated in wars with Israel? Responses should identify: Mauritania, Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Oman, U.A.E. (The United Arab Emirates), Qatar, and Kuwait.

f. Does a country need to send troops to fight to be considered part of a conflict? Responses might mention that conflicts are not only about physical battles. Inform students that almost no Arab state recognizes Israel nor has trade relationships with Israel. So, the Arab-Israeli conflict includes most of the Arab world. Note for teachers: Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania have full diplomatic relations with Israel and Qatar has trade relations with Israel.

3) Show Geographic Features of Israel and Its Neighbors map and ask:

a. How would the geographic features on this map create challenges for the people who live there? Responses should mention that most of the land is desert or mountainous, so there is probably not much water or good farmland.

b. Why might this contribute to conflicts? Responses should mention that people might disagree over who controls limited resources.

c. Why is the area on this map important for trade? Responses should mention that the

area is a land bridge between Asia and Africa. The fact that it also helps link Southeast Asia and Europe should also be addressed; the Suez Canal links the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea and goods are also shipped overland through Israel to these bodies of water. Mention that in modern times this has been much more important than the fact that the region is a land bridge. One of the clearest examples of this is the Trans-Israel pipeline.

4) Inform students that the Trans-Israel pipeline was constructed in 1968 to transport Oil

from Iran to Europe with a maximum capacity of 1.2 million barrels of oil per day. Iran cut ties with Israel following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Afterwards, Israel retooled the pipeline to carry oil in the opposite direction. It can now be used by oil producers in Russia, the Caucuses, and central Asian republics to ship oil to the Far East. The pipeline has terminals on the Mediterranean Sea (in Ashkelon, Israel) and the Red Sea (in Eilat, Israel). Oil producers can ship oil from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean across the pipeline to ships on the Red Sea which will carry the oil to Asian markets. Oil can also be shipped from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean to the Trans-Israel pipeline through another pipeline (the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline). The Trans-Israel pipeline can transport up to 400,000 barrels of oil per day between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

5) Use a world map to show why the shipping of goods between the Mediterranean Sea

and the Red Sea is much more efficient than shipping them around Africa. Ask students how the Arab-Israeli conflict and international trade routes might affect each other.


Responses might mention that military conflict can disrupt trade routes, that this disruption can help spur other nations to promote calm, and that blocking trade routes could spur armed conflict. Note for Teachers: Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal was the driving force behind England and France’s instigation of the Suez War of 1956, and Egypt’s blockade of Israeli access to the Red Sea, an act of war, was a cause of the 1967 War.

Topic 2: Zionism & Arab Nationalism

1) Ask students to discuss why it is important to understand the history of a conflict rather

than simply looking at current events. Responses might mention that one cannot understand a current situation without understanding the events that led to it, that understanding the history helps one understand the sentiments of the people involved, that understanding the history helps one understand the complexity of an issue, or that a conflict cannot be solved without understanding its causes.

2) Distribute The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism and The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Reading Questions.

3) Instruct students to use the reading to answer the questions. This activity may be done individually, in mixed ability pairs, or as a whole-class activity with students taking turns reading.

4) Have students share answers. Closure: Why Does It Matter?

1) Ask students to think about the geography and history of the region and to identify factors that might lead to conflict. Responses should identify limited natural resources such as water and farmland and the differing goals of Zionists and Arab nationalists.

2) (optional) Display the “What We Want to Know” transparency from the anticipatory set. Have students identify questions that they can now answer or begin to answer. Have students provide answers to those questions.

8

The Arab League and Israel

Arab League states that have not participated in wars with Israel

Israel

Arab League states that have participated in wars with Israel

Gaza Strip and West Bank

9

Geographic Features of Israel and Its Neighbors

10

The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism Nations In every day speech, people often use the terms nation, country, and state differently than historians and political scientists use the terms. For historians and political scientists, a nation is a large group of people who are associated with a particular territory and believe that they share common attributes that make them a distinct group. These attributes often include a shared language, history, and culture. Nation is not synonymous with country, which is a political division of an area, nor is it synonymous with state, which refers to a self-governing political entity. The terms state and country can be used interchangeably, but some countries, such as the United States of America, also refer to smaller internal political units as states. Nationalism is the idea that nations should be proud of their national identity and celebrate it. It often expresses itself in the belief that nations have the right to self-determination, the ability to form independent states, called nation-states. This understanding of nationalism should not be confused with popular usages that equate the term to “super-nationalism” or extremist ideologies. Nationalism in this context is a neutral term and countries across the globe, ranging from Italy to Uzbekistan, base their legitimacy on being expressions of national identity. Nationalism began in Europe in the early 19th century. Before this time, most people’s primary loyalty was to their own town or locality. Many governments ruled empires that included people of various nationalities. From Europe, the idea of nationalism spread around the world. Nationalism and pride in the nation-state have spurred great achievements, such as works of literature, architecture, and music. However, nationalism has also caused great conflict. For example, nationalism brought some Arabs and some Jews into conflict in the early 20th century. This conflict continues today. In order to understand this conflict, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of both Jewish and Arab history. The Jewish Homeland Judaism and the Jewish people originated in a region they call the Land of Israel. Approximately 3,000 years ago, their ancestors formed the Kingdom of Israel in this area. After a period of foreign rule beginning in the 6th century BCE, Jews reestablished an independent kingdom, called Judea. However, in 63 BCE, Rome began to dominate the area. In 6 CE, Rome incorporated the Jewish kingdom into its empire as a province. Roman rule and taxes were harsh on the Jews. At times Romans interfered with Jewish religious practice. In 66 CE, the Jews began a revolt to regain their independence. By the year 70, the Romans had crushed the revolt and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem - the center of Jewish religious life. In 131, the Romans began to build a temple to one of their gods on the ruins of the Jewish Temple. Jews revolted again. Following this revolt, the majority of Jews in the province were killed, exiled, or sold into slavery. Although some Jews continued to live in the province, most now lived in the area outside of their ancient homeland. In order to wipe out the Jewish connection to the province, the Roman emperor ordered that its name be changed from Judea to Syria Palaestina, which was eventually shortened to Palestine. However, Jews did not lose their connection to their ancient homeland and Jerusalem, its capital and the site where their Temple had stood. Although some Jews never left this area,

11

which they continued to call the Land of Israel, and others immigrated to it, most Jews felt that they would only be able to return when God led them there. Jews expressed their connection to this land and their hope to be able to return in the future through prayer, the psalms they recited from the Bible, folktales, artwork, and song. Palestine Becomes Part of the Arab World For the next five hundred years, Palestine remained a region in the eastern half of the Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire). During this time, the empire became Christian and its leaders came to value the area as the birthplace of Jesus, and Jerusalem as the place where they believed that he was resurrected. Then, in 638, the area was conquered by a Muslim army from the Arabian Peninsula. Islam arose in the Arabian Peninsula when Muhammad began preaching to the Arab tribes who lived there in 613. By the time of his death in 632, all the tribes in the area had converted to Islam. In 634, the new leader of these tribes, Umar, led a large army out of the Arabian Peninsula. Within six years, they had conquered Egypt and much of Southwestern Asia, including Palestine, which became part of the province of Greater Syria. These conquerors regarded Jerusalem as particularly important because they believed that Muhammad had ascended to heaven from there. They built a shrine on the spot where they believed he ascended, which was also the location where the Jewish Temple had once stood. Islam soon became the dominant religion in the region. Jews and Christians were usually protected from attacks, theft, and forced conversions; but, they did not have all of the rights of Muslims and had to pay a special tax. The treatment of religious minorities under Muslim rule varied across time and place. However, they were generally treated better under Muslim rule than Jews were treated in Christian Europe. Antisemitism in Europe In Europe, Jews faced many restrictions. They were often prohibited from owning land and were only allowed to work in certain professions. In the early 13th century, the Church issued a decree that Jews had to wear special clothes so they could be easily identified. In some places, they had to live in special areas of the city called ghettoes. Ghettoes were often overcrowded, impoverished, and had walls with gates that were locked at night and during Christian holidays. When the gates were locked, Jews were not allowed outside of the ghetto. In addition to restrictions, antisemitic beliefs also caused great violence against Jews. For example, during the crusades many Jewish communities were destroyed and many Jews were killed. Originally, the crusades were a series of military expeditions to the Eastern Mediterranean because Europeans believed that God wanted them to conquer the “Holy Land,” where Jesus had lived, from its Muslim rulers. Some crusaders believed that God wanted them to kill all non-Christians and so they attacked European Jews. Scholars estimate that between one-quarter and one-third of the Jews in northern France and Germany were killed during the First Crusade alone. The Jewish population in the region of Palestine was devastated as well. The crusades were also directed against the Arab population of the region and Muslims suffered great persecution from the European invaders, an experience that made them distrust European ideas and intentions. Jews in Europe were also often blamed – or scapegoated – for tragedies and natural disasters such as the disappearance of a child or the outbreak of disease. These accusations often led to

12

attacks. Jews were also often forced to convert or leave their homes. Between the 11th and 19th centuries, Jews were expelled at least thirty-four times from major Christian cities and states. The most famous example of these expulsions was in 1492 when Jews in Spain were given the choice of converting, leaving the country, or being killed. Many Jews fled to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire and the Birth of Arab Nationalism The Ottoman Empire began in what is today western Turkey around the year 1300. At the height of its power (16th-17th centuries), it controlled large parts of Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Asia, and North Africa. The Ottomans were ethnically Turkish and religiously Muslim, but their empire was extremely diverse and included many ethnicities and large Jewish and Christian populations. As under earlier Muslim rule, Christians and Jews did not have full equal rights, but were usually protected. From the 16th through 20th centuries, most Arabs lived in the Ottoman Empire. The majority of Arabs shared the Muslim religion with the Turks. However, the Turks were not Arabs and nationalist ideas began to spread to Arabs in the late 19th century. Arab interest in nationalism began as a literary and cultural movement to re-establish the prominence of Arab culture and to promote a positive ethnic identity. As time passed, Arabs increasingly expressed the desire for greater self-rule. In 1912, Syrian Arabs living in Egypt founded the Ottoman Decentralization Party. The party sought more local autonomy for Arabs. In 1913, a group of young Arabs who were students in European universities met at the First Arab Congress and demanded more rights and autonomy for Arabs in the empire. There was also a secret society of Arab officers in the Ottoman army, who supported turning the empire into a Turkish-Arab dual monarchy on the model of Austria-Hungary in Europe. However, before World War I, few Arabs argued for a completely independent Arab state. Ottoman authorities sought to maintain control of the empire and could respond strongly to threats to their power. In addition, most Muslim Arabs supported the idea that all Muslims should be united under one Islamic state. Most non-Muslim Arabs also opposed complete independence because they felt it would lead to European domination. Arab nationalists of different religious backgrounds were united by their goal of greater Arab autonomy. They were also largely united by their opposition to Zionism. Antisemitism in Modern Europe and the Birth of Zionism In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “pogroms” against Jews became common. These were organized government-tolerated or government-sponsored attacks on Jews in Russia and Eastern Europe. However, in Western Europe, ghettoes were abolished and Jews were granted legal equality with Christians. This led many Jews in Western Europe to believe that they would be accepted as equals. However, when they came to realize that antisemitism continued to flourish, they began to look for a new solution. A watershed moment was in 1894 when a Jewish journalist named Theodor Herzl reported on the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army. France, one of the most advanced and enlightened countries in the world, guaranteed the equality of all of its citizens, regardless of their religion. Yet, the prevailing antisemitic atmosphere led to Dreyfus’ conviction on the charge of treason despite his being innocent (he was exonerated in 1906). Herzl also witnessed French mobs shouting “Death to the Jews!” Herzl concluded that the only solution to antisemitism was to establish a Jewish state. He organized modern political Zionism, which is

13

Jewish nationalism dedicated to self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancient homeland, the Land of Israel. As was previously discussed, Jews had long dreamed of returning to their ancient homeland, but most felt that this could not happen until God led them there. Herzl popularized the idea that Jews could reestablish their homeland as an expression of nationalism rather than strictly on the basis of religious belief. Jews around the world began donating money to purchase land from Arab and Ottoman landowners. Suffering from horrific pogroms, Eastern European Jews began immigrating to these properties and developing the infrastructure of a modern nation with schools, hospitals, and theaters, as well as agricultural communities. World War I—Conflicting Promises During World War I, Arab nationalists began to argue for an independent Arab state because Ottoman power was weakening, Arab youths were being conscripted into the Ottoman army, the provinces were suffering from famine and labor shortages, and Arab leaders were arrested and even executed on the suspicion of treason. Arab nationalists believed that life would be better if Arabs were united under an independent Arab government. Britain attempted to gain Arab support by promising Arab independence. At the same time, Britain tried to enlist Jewish support by promising to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. At the conclusion of the war, both Jews and Arabs felt betrayed because instead of either gaining independence, Ottoman Syria was divided between the British and the French. The region known as Palestine came under the control of the British as a mandate granted by the League of Nations. Part of the mandate included the obligation to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. Until the establishment of the mandate, Palestine’s boundaries had not been defined because it was not a distinct political unit. With the imposition of the Palestine Mandate, the borders of Palestine were defined for the first time. It included land on both sides of the Jordan River encompassing the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. However, Palestine did not remain intact for long, because, in 1921, Britain created an administrative entity called Transjordan as a political division of the Palestine Mandate. In 1922, with the support of the League of Nations, Britain established that all provisions dealing with Jewish settlement in the Palestine Mandate would not apply to Transjordan. The Zionists felt betrayed because a huge part of Palestine, almost 80% of the original mandate was now prohibited to them. The eastern part of the Palestine Mandate became the Arab state of Transjordan (across the Jordan)—today known as Jordan. The western half, still called Palestine, remained under British control.

14

The Origins of Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Reading Questions

1) What is the difference between a nation and a state? In your opinion, why does nationalism exist?

2) Why did most Jews end up living outside of their homeland?

3) What is the religious significance of Jerusalem for Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

4) How were medieval European ghettoes similar to modern American ghettoes? How were

they different?

15

5) How did the crusades affect Arabs?

6) Before World War I, why did most Arab nationalists argue for the idea of greater self-rule

rather than complete independence from the Ottoman Empire?

7) In late 19th century Europe, Jews had legal equality but not actual equality. How is it possible

that a group can have legal equality but not actual equality? What examples of this have there been in America?

8) Why did Jews embrace modern Zionism?

16

Place the following 10 events in chronological order below: 1. Nationalism begins in Europe. 2. Judea is renamed Palestine by the Romans when the Jews try to regain their

independence. 3. Europeans try to conquer the “Holy Land” during the crusades. 4. Ottoman lands are divided between the British and the French. 5. Islam begins in the Arabian Peninsula. 6. Jews in Spain are given the choice of converting, leaving the country, or being killed. 7. Tribes from the Arabian Peninsula conquer Palestine. 8. The Ottoman Empire is at the height of its power. 9. Britain makes conflicting promises to Jews and Arabs. 10. Arab nationalists argue for greater autonomy in the Ottoman Empire.


Lesson II: Broken Promises Made to Arabs and Jews during WWI

Materials Each student will need:

1) One of the following primary sources (students will be divided into groups, each group will examine a different document - see Topic 1 below): a. Sykes-Picot Agreement and Map b. A Letter from British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein of

Mecca c. Balfour Declaration, US Congress Endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, and

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement d. Excerpts from a Committee Considering the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of

1915-1916 e. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points

2) The script for the Who Drew the Map?: A Readers’ Theater

The teacher will need: 3) Overhead transparency of Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Essential Information 3) Role cards for the Readers’ Theater (cut-out before class)


1) Students will be able to describe Britain’s promises to Arabs during World War I.

2) Students will be able to describe Britain’s promises to Jews during World War I.

3) Students will be able to describe Britain’s agreement with France to divide Ottoman lands in Southwest Asia.




Instructional Design Anticipatory Set: How Does It Feel?

1) Ask students, “Has someone ever promised to do something that was very important to you and then broken their promise? How did that make you feel?”

2) If Lesson I was used, ask students, “Why did the British make conflicting promises to Arab nationalists and Zionists in the early 20th century? What were the goals of each of these movements (Zionism and Arab nationalism)?”

3) Project the transparency Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Essential Information. If Lesson I was used, inform students that this transparency summarizes some of the key information from the previous lesson that they need to know for today’s lesson.

4) Have student volunteers read each paragraph. Topic 1: The Promises

1) Tell students that they will be divided into groups, each of which will examine a different

set of primary sources. Their goal is to prepare a brief summary of the material for the class that explains what will happen to Ottoman lands in the Middle East following World War I according to their documents. Write this goal on the board.

2) Divide the class into 5 groups and give each group one of the following sets of primary sources: • Sykes-Picot Agreement and Map • A Letter from British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein of

Mecca • Balfour Declaration, US Congress Endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, and

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement • Excerpts from a Committee Considering the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of

1915-1916 • Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points

3) Have groups share their summaries. Note for teachers: the title Sheriff is usually transliterated as Sharif today. It refers to a descendent of Muhammad and is unrelated to the English word sheriff. Emir Faisal was the son of Sharif Hussein. Original transliterations have been kept in primary source documents, but modern conventions are followed everywhere else, including document titles. For clarity, this should be mentioned to students. This occurs because names and words from other languages can be spelled in English, or transliterated, in a variety of ways.

Topic 2: Who Drew the Map

1) Before class, cut out role cards from the sheet with the role cards.


2) Distribute each card to students, beginning with character roles and continuing with moderator roles. There are enough cards for 24 students. If there are cards left over, distribute each to a different moderator.

3) Distribute copies of the script for the Readers’ Theater - “Who Drew the Map?”

4) Tell students that this Readers’ Theater is an interactive experience of the events that surrounded the conflicting promises. They should follow along and read their part(s) at the appropriate time. Encourage students to read with emotion.

5) Have students read the script.

Closure: Justice for None

1) (Optional) Display the “What We Want to Know” transparency from the anticipatory set of Lesson I. Have students identify questions that they can now answer or begin to answer. Have students provide answers to those questions.

2) Ask students: a. What promises did the British make during World War I? Responses should mention

the promise to give Hussein bin Ali independence for Arabs, the promise to create a Jewish national home in Palestine, and the promise to divide Ottoman lands with France.

b. Why did the British make conflicting promises? Which promises did they break? Responses should mention that the British wanted Jewish and Arab support during the war, but after the war they wanted to control Ottoman lands. So, they broke their promises to both groups.

c. In America, we believe in “justice for all.” Was there justice for all in the Middle East after World War I? What does the word “justice” mean? Students should agree that there was not justice in the Middle East after WWI. Student definitions of justice might include the idea that justice is upholding what is right and fair.

d. Was justice possible in the Middle East after World War I? Why or why not?

Responses will vary but students should be able to explain their opinions. Students who feel it was possible might say that the British could have given the area independence. Students who feel it was not possible might mention the fact that it was not possible for both Arab nationalists and Zionists to get what they felt the British promised them.

e. What do you think happened in the region because of broken promises and the lack

of justice after World War I? Responses will vary but might mention conflict, anger, or resentment.

20

Zionism and Arab Nationalism: Essential Information

Both Zionism and Arab nationalism were nationalist ideologies that emerged in the late 19th century. Nationalism is the belief that nations should be proud of their national identity and celebrate it. It often expresses itself in the belief that nations should have their own states. A nation is a large group of people who are associated with a particular territory and believe that they share common attributes, such as a shared language, history, and culture that make them a distinct group. Nation is not a synonym for country or state. Country and state refer to a defined geographic area with political boundaries that has a sovereign (independent) government. Some countries, such as the United States of America, also use state to refer to smaller internal political units. Zionism began in late 19th century Europe where nationalism had become popular. The Zionist movement came to believe that the only solution to the horrific persecution that Jews faced was the reestablishment of a Jewish nation or state in their historic homeland. The Jewish state became the Roman province of Judea in 6 CE. When Jews tried to regain their independence in 135 CE, most were killed, exiled, or sold into slavery. However, Jews did not lose their connection to this land and to their capital, Jerusalem, where their temple had once stood. Jews expressed their connection to this land and their hope to be able to return in the future through prayer, the psalms they recited from the Bible, folktales, artwork, and song. Over time, small groups of Jews returned to the land and a small Jewish presence always remained. In the 19th century the ancient Jewish homeland was part of the Ottoman Empire. Informally, the region was often called Palestine. Arab nationalism also began in the late 19th century. At this time, most Arabs lived in the Ottoman Empire, which was Turkish. The majority of Arabs shared the Muslim religion with the Turks. However, the Turks were not Arabs and nationalist ideas began to spread to Arabs in the late 19th century. Arab interest in nationalism began as a literary and cultural movement to re-establish the prominence of Arab culture and to promote a positive ethnic identity. As time passed, Arabs increasingly felt that they should have greater self-rule. During World War I, many Arabs felt greatly mistreated by the Ottoman government and Arab nationalists popularized the idea of independent Arab rule.

21

The Sykes-Picot Agreement: 1916 It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments--- 1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States in the areas (A) and (B) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. 2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. 3. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Sheriff of Mecca. 4. That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area (A) for area (B). His Majesty's Government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third Power without the previous consent of the French Government. 5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British Empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the red area, or (B) area, or area (A); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned. That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (A), or area (B), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned. 6. That in area (A) the Baghdad Railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (B) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad with Aleppo via the Euphrates Valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two Governments. 7. That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (B), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times.

22

It is to be understood by both Governments that this railway is to facilitate the connexion of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French Government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the polygon Banias-Keis Marib-Salkhab Tell Otsda-Mesmie before reaching area (B). 8. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (A) and (B), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversion from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two Powers. There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above-mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination. 9. It shall be agreed that the French Government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third Power, except the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States without the previous agreement of His Majesty's Government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French Government regarding the red area. 10. The British and French Governments, as the protectors of the Arab State, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third Power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third Power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the Red Sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression. 11. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two Powers. 12. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two Governments. I have further the honour to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's Government are proposing to the Russian Government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your Excellency's Government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged. I would also venture to remind your Excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of the claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the Allies. His Majesty's Government further consider that the Japanese Government should be informed of the arrangement now concluded.

24

A Letter from British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Hussein of Mecca

From Sir Henry McMahon, 24 October 1915 I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expressions of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction. I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of the limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner. I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded. With the above modification, and without prejudice of our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits. As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interest of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: 1. Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca. 2. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability. 3. When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories. 4. On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British. 5. With regard to the vilayets of Baghdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression, to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.

25

I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them. I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letter which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future. It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom to all peoples! I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Arif Ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.

26

Balfour Declaration 1917 November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

US Congress Endorsement of the Balfour Declaration September 21, 1922 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (January 3, 1919) His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organisation, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles: ARTICLE I The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the

27

most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories. ARTICLE II Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. ARTICLE III In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2d of November, 1917. ARTICLE IV All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development. ARTICLE V No regulation nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. ARTICLE VI The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control. ARTICLE VII The Zionist Organisation proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof. ARTICLE VIII The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress. ARTICLE IX Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration. Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen. Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn al-Hussein.

28

Excerpts from a Committee Considering the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of 1915-1916

March 16, 1939 12. The argument of the Arab representatives, as set forth in their Memorandum dated the 23rd February, 1939, may be summarised as follows:— (a) There is no room for doubt that Palestine was in fact and in intention included by both parties to the McMahon-Husain Correspondence in the area of Arab independence. This is abundantly plain from the terms of the Correspondence itself and is, moreover, borne out by the evidence of the historical background (e) It cannot be (and it has never been) disputed that Palestine was included in the area demanded by the Sharif Husain as the area of future Arab independence. That area was accepted by Sir Henry McMahon in toto, save for certain reservations. Palestine was not mentioned in those reservations…The fact that he does not mention Palestine, either specifically or by paraphrase, makes it impossible for anyone to contend that Palestine was excluded from the area which Sir Henry McMahon had accepted as the area of future Arab independence. (f) His Majesty's Government's contention that the phrase "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" included the whole of the Vilayet of Syria is untenable. It rests on the theory that district is equivalent to vilayet, which, in the light of the context as well as of common sense, is demonstrably false. 13. The contentions of the United Kingdom representatives were set forth at the second meeting and may be summarised as follows:— (a) Palestine was in a very special position at the time of the Correspondence having in view its position as the Holy Land of three great religions, the interest which it held for Christians, as well as for Moslems and Jews, all over the world, the large number of religious and other buildings and institutions belonging to non-Arab persons, and the obvious practical interests of Great Britain in a territory so close to Egypt and the Suez Canal. The United Kingdom representatives also contend that Palestine was not a purely Arab country. (b) The exclusion in Sir Henry McMahon's letter of the 24th October, 1915, of "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" from the area of Arab independence claimed by the Sharif of Mecca in his letter of the 14th July, 1915, excluded, and should reasonably have been understood to exclude, the part of southern Syria, consisting of portions of the former vilayet of Beirut and the former independent Sanjaq of Jerusalem, now known as Palestine. The United Kingdom representatives maintain on various grounds elaborated in the memorandum of the 24th February that this phrase covered an area stretching from the Cilician border to the Gulf of 'Aqaba, to the west of which lay what is now called Palestine. (d) On the strength of this and other arguments based upon the letter of the 24th October, 1915, and other letters in the Correspondence the United Kingdom representatives contend that the effect of the Correspondence when read in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, including especially those set forth in sub-paragraph (a), was to exclude what is now called Palestine from the area in which Great Britain was to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs.

29

16. Both the Arab and the United Kingdom representatives have tried (as they hope with success) to understand the point of view of the other party, but they have been unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the Correspondence, and they feel obliged to report to the conference accordingly. http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/c25aba03f1e079db85256cf40073bfe6/4c4f7515dc39195185256cf7006f878c!OpenDocument

30

President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points (January 18, 1918) It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view. We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The programme of the world's peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme, the only possible programme, as we see it, is this: I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined. VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

31

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality. X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development. XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into. XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end. For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this programme does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this programme that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world--the new world in which we now live--instead of a place of mastery.

32

Role Cards for the Readers’ Theater

Selim

Suleiman Mohammed Ali

Alfred Dreyfus

Theodor Herzl Mark Sykes

Lord Herbert Kitchener

T.E. Lawrence McMahon

Picot

Weizmann Balfour

British Official

Sharif Hussein Moderator 1

Moderator 2

Moderator 3 Moderator 4

Moderator 5


Moderator 8


33

Who Drew the Map?: A Readers' Theater by Jackie Berman

Moderator 1: How did the map of the Middle East get to be the way it is today? Who drew the boundaries of the nations there and why did they draw them that way? Before we answer that question, let's go back in time. Selim I: The year is 1517 and I am Selim I, ruler of the Ottoman Empire. I have conquered the lands from Turkey to Egypt; the holy cities of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem are under my rule. Suleiman: The year is 1566. I am Suleiman the Magnificent. I am an old man, about to die. I look back on my life with satisfaction. I became the Ottoman leader after Selim and I extended the Ottoman Empire westward along the North African coast and southward to Yemen and Aden, from Algeria to the Persian Gulf, from Aleppo to the Indian Ocean. Moderator 2: From the 16th through the 20th century, most Arabs lived in the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs had not been united under a single Arab government since the 8th century but they were unified by the same language, Arabic, by similar cultures, and most were unified by the same religion, Islam. They were also separated by differences of laws, by differences of traditions, and by religious differences (Arab Muslims belonged to a variety of sects and there were also many non-Muslim Arabs). Mohammed Ali: The year is 1840 and I, Mohammed Ali, just signed a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire that gave my descendents hereditary rule of Egypt. I am the greatest! Just kidding, that was a quote from another famous Mohammed Ali. As the Ottoman governor of Egypt, I helped the sultan put down rebellions and fight battles across the empire. But when he did not give me control of Syria, I rebelled. I claimed to want to recreate an Arab empire, but really I just wanted my own empire. In fact, I tried to take control of the entire empire and I am not even ethnically Arab. Nonetheless, I made Arab Egypt effectively independent from the Ottoman Empire and reintroduced the idea of an Arab empire to the Arab world. Moderator 3: Even after Mohammed Ali, most Arabs in the Ottoman lands continue to support the empire for a variety of reasons including support for the idea of a unified Islamic caliphate and concerns about being exploited by European imperialists. The Jews who were expelled from their land, Israel, in ancient times face continuing persecution throughout Europe. Although some were able to return to their homeland over the years, most have lived as strangers, sometimes welcome, sometimes driven out, in other peoples’ lands. For example, in 1492 and 1497, the Jews of Spain and Portugal were forced either to convert to Christianity or leave. Even many who converted were later called heretics and burned alive. Many who left went to the Ottoman Empire where, although they were not treated as equals, they were allowed to practice their religion and live in relative safety.

34

Alfred Dreyfus: The year is 1894. I am Alfred Dreyfus. A great injustice has been done! I am an officer in the French Army and I have been accused of a crime, espionage. Everyone knows I am innocent. But I have been convicted because I am a Jew. Theodor Herzl: I am Theodor Herzl, a newspaper reporter. Oh yes, by the way, I am Jewish, although I have never thought much about that because I live in a free country. The French government guaranteed everyone equality after the Revolution of 1789, so I believed we Jews didn't have to worry about antisemitism and discrimination against Jews. But I covered the trial of Alfred Dreyfus for my paper. It was outrageous! The man is clearly innocent, but he was found guilty because he is Jewish. Moderator 4: Herzl now believes the only way to eliminate antisemitism is for the Jews to have a state just as other peoples do. He uses his writing skill to explain this idea to save the Jewish people from persecution and death. On January 19, 1896, Herzl writes his diary... Herzl: “...concluded arrangements with the publisher...He grew enthusiastic when I read him a few passages from the text, which after hard labor is at last completed. I have changed the title; it is now The Jewish State. And I feel the relief that comes from finishing up a task.” Moderator 5: Herzl convinces some Jewish leaders and then others of the need for a Jewish state. The political movement to rebuild the ancient Jewish homeland, called Zionism, is born. It attracts Jews from all over the world who have known the fear of persecution and the yearning to live once again in the Land of Israel, now a region called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire. Jewish settlers begin to buy land in Palestine from Arab and Ottoman landowners and to settle and work the land. Mark Sykes: The year is 1915. The Ottoman Turkish flag flies over Damascus, Bagdad, and Jerusalem. I am Sir Mark Sykes, a very important young person in the British Government. I have been asked by my government to come up with a plan for what should be done with what's left of the Ottoman Empire. We British already control Egypt and the Suez Canal, and we want to keep it that way. The Great War, which will later be called World War I, is in progress and we need a plan for the rest of the Middle East when the war is over. Herbert Lord Kitchener: Listen, Sykes old chap, we need to get the Arabs to overthrow the Ottomans while we're fighting the Germans. This war is a nasty business, but now that America has joined our side, you can carry on with your plans. T.E. Lawrence: Say, they don't call me Lawrence of Arabia for nothing! I hope my superiors in the British government understand that I promised old Sharif Hussein that if he joins our side and revolts against the Turks, we’ll set him up as ruler of an Arab empire. I can't wait to go into battle with my good friend, Sharif Hussein's son, Faisal. Faisal and I are a great team and I love to ride across the desert with him on magnificent Arabian steeds.

35

Sharif Hussein: I think I can really trust the British. I have found them to be most honest. Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, has written me many letters and he has promised me that I will rule a great Arab empire. There will be lots of blood shed in our rebellion, but the prize is worth it! T.E. Lawrence: McMahon, what are you writing to Hussein? Remember, I need him and his sons now, in 1915, to unify all the Arabs to rebel against the Turks. We must make it worth their while. McMahon: Calm down, dear boy, I am writing the right things, not too specific. But, he should be in our pocket. By the way, we don't need to mention our little arrangement with Hussein to our French allies, if you know what I mean. (Picks up phone – ring, ring.) Hello, Kitchener? McMahon here. What is Sykes up to these days? Don't you think it's time for him and the French to come up with some plan for the Middle East once we have finished off the Germans and Turks? Sykes should get together with that French fellow - what's his name? Oh yes, Picot - rhymes with freak-o (ha, ha). Well, Kitchener, let's see what the two chaps will come up with. What? Lawrence? Yes, yes, he knows what to do. He can't wait, really. He actually enjoys riding around on that horse. Moderator 6: The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Sykes: Now see here, Picot. You French can't have the whole thing, you know. We understand you want control of Lebanon on the west coast and in the north, and you want influence over the rest, but you can't have all of Syria. We British want to play a role in administering the region known as Palestine after the war. Maybe as part of an international group. Picot: Ah, my dear Monsieur Sykes, with the Americans coming into the war, who knows what they might want? We'd better make this agreement right now. All right, France will take Syria, including Lebanon and Britain can have the railroad from Palestine to the east. Sykes: Maybe we have a deal. Let's see, give me the map. We'll draw this border here, and this one here. Sharif Hussein: Oh, excuse me Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot, are you having a meeting? You aren't making any agreements, are you? Sykes and Picot: Oh no, no, Sharif, we haven't made any agreements. Moderator 7: Meanwhile, in England:

36

Weizmann: I am the Jewish scientist, Chaim Weizmann. I have gained respect for my work among the leaders in Britain, but I have a huge responsibility to help my people. Herzl’s idea of a return to Zion has caught on. Every year more Jews join the movement. Many are fleeing persecution in Europe, buying land in Palestine and settling there. But we need official recognition of our right to return to Israel. The British government should make a public statement about a Jewish state. I must see what I can do. I’ll call Lord Balfour. A.J. Balfour: Weizmann, my dear fellow, how good of you to call. You know I admire you greatly and many of my colleagues, including Prime Minister Lloyd George and that Churchill fellow, believe in your cause. Jews have been persecuted throughout the ages. The least we can do is return their ancient homeland to them. They are working so hard to restore the land, and the conditions are so difficult. Weizmann: I am overjoyed! The Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, has issued a declaration. It states that the British government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. They are calling me a great diplomat. But, I am not a diplomat. I went to Balfour as a man of the people and spoke to him of my people's cause. At last we Jews can rebuild our nation. Jews will have a home at last and the Arab people now living there will welcome us because we will make that barren land into a productive country. We can work side by side and live together in peace. I only wish Herzl could have lived to see this day. Moderator 8. For a brief time, it seemed as though the goal of a Jewish national home in Palestine and the goal of a united Arab state might both be realized. Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein and friend of T.E. Lawrence, signed an agreement with Weizmann to support the Balfour Declaration's call for a Jewish national home in Palestine. However, the agreement was not supported by all Arabs and it depended on the British fulfilling their promise to create an Arab state. The British did not fulfill their promises. Sharif Hussein: I have been betrayed! You British have broken your promise to me. My Syria has been cut into pieces. We no longer have a sea coast or a port. We are not independent. We will be under British and French rule now instead of Ottoman rule. And furthermore, many of my people are saying that the Jews must not have control of land in the Arab nation. Palestine is part of Greater Syria; it must remain under Muslim rule. British Official: There, there, Sharif. We want to do the right thing. Since it didn’t work out for your family in Syria, we’ll make your son Faisal king of Iraq and your son Abdullah king of a new country we will create by giving him choice property east of the Jordan River. It will be called Transjordan. Of course, we British will help manage things there. We British will take control of the Palestine Mandate west of the Jordan River. Weizmann: What? You're dividing Palestine? We thought the Balfour Declaration meant that all of Palestine could be a Jewish homeland! British Official: Well, it just won't work. The Arabs are angry about allowing any Jews in the area and there are riots. From now on, no Jews can go east of the Jordan, and we will have to limit Jews coming into the Palestine Mandate if this unrest keeps up.

37

Moderator 9: And so the forces that created the new countries were set in motion right after World War I with the creation of British and French Mandates. Both the Arabs and Jews felt betrayed. Neither had yet achieved complete independence. The sons of Hussein shared power with the British. Both Arabs and Jews wanted independent states. But they had different ideas about where and how big their lands should be. The French ruled Syria by promoting divisions among various religious groups, such the Sunnis, Shias, Druz, Christians, and Alawais. The Syrians hated the French administration, but it would be decades before the French would leave. Moderator 10: In British Palestine, Jews continued to immigrate and purchase land. Arabs increasingly opposed the growth and success of Jewish settlements and Britain increasingly restricted Jewish immigration. But Jews continued to arrive and set up various agencies to provide services and infrastructure, such as schools, health care, protection, and road building. They were developing a way to govern themselves in anticipation that the British would leave. But that would not happen until after the Second World War and the effects of British and French rule would have a lasting impact on the map of the Middle East. Sources: The Arab Awakening, by George Antonius, Capricorn Books, New York, 1965. “How the Modern Middle East Map Came to Be Drawn,” by David Fromkin, May 1991. “Blame Gulf Crisis on T.E. Lawrence,” by Phillop Knightley, the San Francisco Chronicle, December 12, 1990. The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Marbin Lowenthal, Dial Press, New York, 1956. The Siege, by Conor Curise O’Brien, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986. Asad, by Patrick Seale, University of California Press, Berkeley


Lesson III: The British Mandate and the 1948 War


1) Copies of Understanding the 1948 War through Maps The teacher will need:

2) Transparencies of the following maps: a. Southwest Asia and North Africa Before and After World War I b. The Separation of Transjordan

3) Transparency or copy of: a. The British Mandate b. World War II and the Holocaust


1) Students will be able to describe the British administration of the Mandate for Palestine.

2) Students will be able to discuss the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish community and the effort to create a Jewish state.

3) Students will be able to analyze the causes and consequences of the 1948 War.

Instructional Design Anticipatory Set: Compromise

1) Ask for a student volunteer to define compromise. Write the definition on the board and have class propose changes or additions.

2) Share the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of compromise: “A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.”




3) Ask students to discuss the pros and cons of compromising. Students should mention that in a compromise neither side gets exactly what they want, but that both sides get some of what they want.

Topic 1: The British Mandate

1) Display Southwest Asia and North Africa Before and After World War I map. Ask: a. What happened to the land of the Ottoman Empire after World War I? Responses

should identify that it was divided between the French and the British. They might also mention that Turkey became an independent country and that the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula became part of the Kingdom of Hejaz. Note for teachers: Nejd was actually a separate kingdom that annexed Hejaz in 1925, but that cannot be determined from the map.

b. Who controlled the area of Palestine? Responses should identify that it was the British.

c. If Lesson I or II was used, ask, “Why would this upset Zionists and Arab

nationalists?” Responses should mention that both Zionists and Arab nationalists felt that the British promised them independence.

2) Read the information from The British Mandate or project it and have student volunteers read.

3) Display The Separation of Transjordan and ask: a. Why did this division of the Palestine Mandate upset Zionists? Responses should

mention that the division prohibited Jewish immigration to approximately 80% of the original mandate.

b. During the British mandate, what were the results of Arab opposition to a Jewish state? Responses should mention that Jewish immigration was restricted by the British and that Arabs had greater difficulty creating the infrastructure for national life because their opposition limited their cooperation with the British.

Topic 2: World War II and the Holocaust

1) Read the information from World War II and the Holocaust or project it and have student volunteers read.

2) Tell students that 6 million is such a large number of individuals it is difficult to conceptualize, but it can be compared to other figures to gain some perspective.

a. It is more people than could fit in 85 average sized NFL stadiums. b. It is roughly twice the number of individuals who live in the state of Mississippi. c. It is more than 1.5 times the number of individuals who live in Los Angeles,

America’s second largest city.

3) Instruct students to stand up. Tell them that the class represents the European Jewish community before the Holocaust.


4) Instruct two-thirds of the class to sit down. Inform students that the class now represents the European Jewish community after the Holocaust; the students who are standing represent the number of Jews who survived in Europe; the students who are sitting represent the 6 million who were murdered.

5) Ask students to share their thoughts and reflections on the activity. Did the comparisons with other figures affect the way they saw the figure of six million individuals? How was seeing survivors and victims represented as standing and sitting students different than reading about the number of Jews who were murdered?

6) Ask students:

a. Why would the Holocaust increase Jewish support for a Jewish state? Responses might mention that Jews might have felt that having their own country would help protect them from another Holocaust, that the non-Jewish governments of the world did nothing to protect the Jews from the Nazis, or the fact that Jewish refugees had nowhere to go because their families were killed, their homes destroyed or occupied by other people, and because antisemitism continued after the war.

b. Why would the Holocaust increase non-Jewish support for a Jewish state? Responses might mention that the Holocaust may have convinced non-Jews that Jews really did need their own state or that they felt it was the most humane response to the situation of the displaced persons and the tragedy of the Holocaust.

Topic 3: Partition and the 1948 War

1) Have students read Understanding the 1948 War through Maps and answer questions in mixed ability pairs or individually.

2) Have volunteers share their responses to the prompts. Closure: Compromise Revisited

1) Ask students, “What were the consequences of the Arab rejection of the idea of a Jewish state?” Responses might mention that Arabs opposed cooperating with the British and were less able to develop a national infrastructure during the mandate, Jewish immigration to the mandate was limited, the 1948 war, Arabs and Jews became refugees, Jordan and Egypt took land from the Arab state in Palestine proposed by the UN, and that the Jewish state became larger than in the UN proposal.

2) Have students discuss if there are times when people should not compromise. If students feel that people should not compromise when they are certain they are correct, ensure that they understand that in most compromises, both sides are certain that they are correct. Students might mention that people should not compromise their morality.

3) Have students discuss why compromise is difficult. They should mention that it requires people to give up things they want or requires them to do things they don’t want to do.


4) Have students discuss difficult compromises that they or people they know have made.

5) (optional) If Lesson I was used, display the “What We Want to Know” transparency from the anticipatory set. Have students identify questions that they can now answer or begin to answer. Have students provide answers to those questions.

42

Southwest Asia and North Africa Before and After WWI Before World War I

After World War I

43

The British Mandate At the conclusion of World War I, both Jews and Arabs felt betrayed because instead of either gaining independence, the region was divided between the British and the French. The region of Palestine came under the control of the British as a mandate granted by the League of Nations. The articles of the mandate included the requirement of establishing a Jewish national home. Until the establishment of the mandate, Palestine’s boundaries had not been defined because it was not a distinct political unit. With the imposition of the Palestine Mandate, the borders of Palestine were defined. It included land on both sides of the Jordan River encompassing the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. Palestine did not remain intact for long, however. In 1921, Britain created an administrative entity called Transjordan as a political division of the Palestine Mandate. In 1922, with the support of the League of Nations, Britain established that all provisions dealing with Jewish settlement in the Palestine Mandate would not apply to Transjordan. Although the two parts technically remained the Palestine Mandate, Transjordan operated as an autonomous unit and the British ruled that Jews could not immigrate there. The Zionists felt betrayed. A huge part of Palestine, almost 80% of the original mandate, was now prohibited to them. After being prohibited from immigrating to Transjordan, Jews continued to immigrate to the remaining 20% of the Mandate where they developed the land and founded schools, universities, industries, courts, a system of tax collection, hospitals, cultural organizations, and a form of self defense and self governance—all the institutions for a national life. For the most part, the Arab community opposed the immigration of Jews, the principles of Zionism, and the mandate. This led to rejecting cooperation with British proposals and activities because it could indicate an acceptance of British authority. As a result, it was difficult for Arabs to create infrastructure for a national life and economic development as the Jews were doing. Arab hostility to Jewish immigration resulted in violent attacks on the Jewish community. In an effort to pacify the Arab community, the British increased restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine until it was virtually halted in 1939. This was intolerable to the Jewish residents because it closed a crucial escape route for Jews fleeing Nazi Europe, and did not satisfy Arab residents who continued to oppose the British administration and the existence of Jewish immigrants. Unable to reconcile the goals of the Arab and Jewish communities, Britain eventually referred the problem to the newly created United Nations after World War II.

44

The Separation of Transjordan (1921)

45

World War II and the Holocaust

World War II began in 1939. Nazi Germany quickly conquered much of Europe, where they established concentration and death camps, and mobile killing units, murdering 6 million European Jews as a part of the Nazi Final Solution to destroy all Jews. In that same year, Britain, which was fighting Germany for the very survival of England, issued a White Paper on Palestine severely limiting Jewish immigration and land sales to Jews in Palestine. The 1939 White Paper was clearly a reversal of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate provisions. This act by Britain enraged the Jewish community. The Jews of Europe were desperately trying to flee ahead of the Nazi death machine, but no country—including the United States—would accept any significant number of the Jewish refugees. It is impossible to know how many Jewish lives could have been saved from the Nazi Holocaust if the British had allowed Jews to enter Palestine. The Haganah, the Jewish self-defense organization, established a special unit called the Palmach that fought on the side of Britain in the war against Germany. The Jewish leader, David Ben Gurion famously declared, “We shall fight the war as if there were no White Paper; we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war!” When the war finally ended, the Allied forces in Europe were shocked to discover the true horror of the Nazi death camps. Two-thirds of Europe’s Jews had been barbarically and systematically murdered. There were some survivors, the remnant of Jewish life in Europe. These displaced persons had nowhere to go. They could not return to their former homes. Their families had been decimated and their property taken. They were malnourished, ill, and emotionally devastated. No country offered to take these desperate refugees and the British White Paper of 1939 continued to prohibit Jewish immigration. However, as the world became aware of the massacre of Europe’s Jews, support for the creation of a Jewish state grew as a solution for the question of what to do with the displaced persons and to help safeguard against the potential for another Holocaust.

46

Understanding the 1948 War through Maps

On each page of this handout, there is an informational paragraph and a map. Use this information to answer the following prompts:

1) Identify the different reactions of Jews and Arabs to the UN Partition Plan. 2) Describe the similarities and differences between the map of the UN Partition Plan and the

map of Israel from 1949-1967. 3) Discuss what life might have been like for those living in divided Jerusalem. 4) Write a short paragraph that answers the following questions: What caused Arabs to become

refugees? Where did most of the Arab refugees go? What caused Jews in Arab lands to become refugees? Where did most of the Jewish refugees go?

47

The United Nations Partition of the Palestine Mandate In 1945, the United Nations (UN) was established to promote peace and to replace the League of Nations, which was considered ineffective. 50 nations were original members. Today there are 193 member states. Unable to find a solution for the unrest in the Mandate for Palestine, Great Britain turned the issue over to the UN. On November 29, 1947, The UN General Assembly voted to partition the Palestine Mandate into an Arab state and a Jewish state and to internationalize the city of Jerusalem. The plan passed by a large majority, with a margin of almost 3:1 in favor. This reflected several beliefs. First, the plan was a good compromise that balanced conflicting goals. Second, it fulfilled the legal commitments made by the League of Nations when it created the Mandate from land that Ottoman Turkey lost during World War One. Third, it was believed to be the most appropriate response to the Holocaust: a Jewish state would offer a refuge for the Holocaust survivors who were stuck in camps with nowhere to go and could offer a safe haven when Jews elsewhere were persecuted. The Jews accepted the partition, even though it was less than they believed they had been promised. The Arab states rejected the partition and the creation of a Jewish homeland in any part of the area.

United Nations Partition Plan for the Palestine Mandate (1947)

48

The 1948 War On May 14, 1948, Great Britain withdrew from the Palestine Mandate. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, proclaimed the independence of Israel as the Jewish state described in the UN Partition Plan. The new state was immediately recognized by the Soviet Union, United States, and other countries. But Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, supported by troops from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, attacked the new state the very next day. This was the first Arab-Israeli war, called by Israelis the War of Independence and by Palestinian Arabs, the nakba or “catastrophe.” As a result of the war, approximately twenty percent more of the former mandate became part of Israel than the UN partition plan allotted. Jordan captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem and later annexed them. Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The armistice boundaries from the 1948 War remained until 1967.

Israel 1949-1967

49

Divided Jerusalem Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The majority of the holy sites for all three religions are in a section of East Jerusalem called the Old City. After the 1948 War, Israel controlled West Jerusalem and Jordan controlled East Jerusalem. Jews were not allowed to enter Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem, even to visit their holy sites. This included the Western Wall, the remnant of the ancient Temple compound and the holiest site in Judaism. Since the two countries did not sign a peace treaty after the war, Israel and Jordan kept a military presence in Jerusalem to guard their border.

Divided Jerusalem 1949-1967

50

Arab Refugees As a result of the 1948 war, approximately 700,000 Arabs fled or were displaced from the areas over which Israel obtained jurisdiction. Some left because they wanted to get out of a war zone; others left because they feared that they would be persecuted or killed by the Israelis; some left after witnessing their leaders flee; and some left due to expulsions by Israeli forces and orders from Arab leaders to leave during the fighting. However, many Arabs remained. They became Israeli citizens and now comprise approximately 20% of Israel’s population.

Palestinian Arab Refugees from the 1948 War

51

Jewish Refugees Jews also became refugees as a result of the war. In addition to absorbing nearly 600,000 European Jewish refugees—the displaced persons who were survivors of the Nazi Holocaust of World War II—Israel absorbed almost 700,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim lands between 1948 and 1989. For over 2,500 years, there had been an uninterrupted presence of Jews in the Arab world. Life for Jews in Arab countries became harsher as their governments reacted against them with anger because of the creation of the State of Israel and as a result of Israel’s military victories. In 1945, there were nearly one million Jews living in ten Arab countries. The majority of them, over 850,000, fled as refugees after the 1948 War. Arab governments confiscated their personal and communal property and stripped them of their citizenships. Most of these Jewish refugees settled in Israel. These Jewish refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf region often refer to themselves as the “forgotten refugees” of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Jews Who Fled from Arab Lands: Movement to Israel 1948-67


Lesson IV: The Continuing Conflict and Steps Toward Peace (1967-Today)


1) Copies of A Timeline Chart of Major Events in Arab-Israeli Relations 2) An Overview of Key Events Since 1967 (if Option B is chosen for Topic 2)

The teacher will need:

3) Transparencies of: a. The 1967 War b. Additional Consequences of the 1967 War

4) The events from An Overview of Key Events Since 1967 cut out to be posted around the classroom (if Option A is chosen for Topic 2)


1) Students will be able to analyze the causes and consequences of the 1967 War.

2) Students will be able to identify major conflicts and peace efforts between Israel and its neighbors after 1967.

Instructional Design Anticipatory Set: What is Peace?

1) Write the following quote by Dorothy Thompson on the board: “Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict.”

2) Ask students to put Thompson’s quotation into their own words.

3) Ask students whether or not they agree with the quotation and why.

Topic 1: The Six Day War




1) Display The Six Day War and have a volunteer read the information.

2) Instruct students to examine the maps, then ask:

a. How did the 1967 War change political boundaries in the region? Responses should

identify that Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordan.

b. Why do some people consider Israel’s preemptive strike illegal and some people consider it justified? Responses should mention that some people might feel that military force should be used only after a country is actually attacked, that Arab armies were poised to strike Israel on all its borders, and that Egypt had blockaded the Straits of Tiran and made repeated public threats to destroy Israel.

c. How large is the Sinai Peninsula compared to Israel before the war? Responses

should identify Sinai as being much larger. Before the 1967 War, Israel was approximately 8,000 square miles. The Sinai Peninsula is approximately 23,500 square miles.

d. Why do you think Israel was willing to return this land to Egypt after the 1979 peace

treaty? Responses, especially if Lesson III was used, should mention that peace requires compromise.

3) Display Additional Consequences of the 1967 War. Have a volunteer read the

information. 4) Instruct students to examine the pie charts and ask:

a. Which country has the most Palestinians? Responses should identify Jordan.

b. What percentage of Palestinian Arabs lives in Israel? Responses should identify

12%. c. Does this mean that 12% of Israelis are Palestinian Arabs? Why? Responses should

indicate that this does not mean 12% of Israelis are Palestinian because the figure is measuring the percentage of Palestinians who live in Israel, not the percentage of Israelis who are Palestinian. If Lesson IV was used remind students that approximately 20% of Israel’s population is Arab. If Lesson IV was not used, this fact may be introduced here. (Optional – review the relationship between fractions and percentages with students; write [Arabs in Israel/Total number of Israelis] and [Palestinians in Israel/Total number of Palestinians] in order to demonstrate what the 12% figure measures. Point out that not all Arabs in Israel are Palestinian (e.g., Bedouin and Druze are non-Palestinian Arabs).


Topic 2: Key Events Since 1967 Option A

1) Before class, cut out each of the key events listed in An Overview of Key Events Since 1967 and post them in different locations around the classroom. ICS recommends posting 2-3 event blurbs in the same location.

2) Distribute A Timeline Chart of Major Events in Arab-Israeli Relations.

3) Instruct students to fill in the third and fourth columns (“Brief Description” and “Outcomes”) by moving around the classroom and reading about the different events. Inform them that the first two rows have been completed for them as examples. To increase classroom order, the teacher may arrange the classroom so that each event (or group of 2-3 events) is at a different station. Assign students to one of the stations. Every few minutes, have the students rotate clockwise to the next station.

Option B

1) Instead of Steps 1-3 above, distribute An Overview of Key Events Since 1967 and A Timeline Chart of Major Events in Arab-Israeli Relations. Instruct students to fill in the chart by reading the information in Overview of Key Events Since 1967. Inform them that the first two rows have been completed for them as examples. This activity may be done individually or in mixed-ability pairs.

Closure: Reflecting on Sources

1) Have students discuss the advantages and disadvantages of learning by creating outline charts from short blurbs. Students might mention that it allows them to cover a large amount of history in a small amount of class time, that it summarizes information to use as a reference, or that it does not give them in-depth information about the events and issues.

2) Have students identify ways they can learn more information. Students might mention internet search engines, encyclopedias, textbooks, the library, or asking family members.

3) Have students discuss the advantages and disadvantages of getting information from the internet. Students might mention that it is convenient, that it is easy to get a wide variety of opinions, that anyone can post anything on the internet, or that the information might be incomplete, biased, or inaccurate especially on topics where people have strong opinions.

4) Have students discuss the advantages and disadvantages of getting information from encyclopedias. Students might mention that encyclopedias are often dry or boring, get outdated quickly, that most encyclopedias try to make their entries neutral and based on facts, not opinions, or that encyclopedia entries are reviewed for accuracy. Mention that Wikipedia is a convenient reference, but that anyone can post to it and the content is not officially reviewed by professionals and should not be relied on exclusively.


5) (Optional) If Lesson I was used, display the “What We Want to Know” transparency from the anticipatory set. Have students identify questions that they can now answer or begin to answer. Have students provide answers to those questions.

56

The 1967 War

In May of 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria mobilized their armies on Israel’s borders. Israel’s major population centers were only a few miles away from these borders. Egypt also closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and to any vessels carrying goods to Israel. Blockades are acts of war and in a statement to the United Nations General Assembly in 1957 Israel explicitly stated that it would consider a blockade of the straits a justification for war. Arab leaders made threatening comments such as Egyptian President Nasser’s statement on May 27, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.” After three weeks of fruitless diplomacy, Israel launched a preemptive strike against the various Arab armies amassed on its borders. Some people argue that this was an illegal action because Israel did not wait until it was attacked. Others argue it was justified for the reasons above. This war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan is known as the “Six-Day War” because it only lasted six days. The result was that Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. The entirety of the Sinai was returned to Egypt under the terms of the Camp David Peace Agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979.

57

Additional Consequences of the 1967 War

As a result of the 1967 War, more Arabs fled from lands captured by Israel. This added to the number of Palestinian Arab refugees. More Jews in Arab lands became refugees as well. After the Arab defeat in 1967, Palestinian Arabs came to believe that they could not count on their fellow Arabs to eliminate the Jewish state. The Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, which was founded in 1964, gained popularity and came under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. This group called for the destruction of Israel and used terrorism, attacking civilian targets in order to accomplish political objectives. Neighboring states were affected because they were used as bases from which the PLO launched its attacks. In 1993, the PLO formally recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and endorsed negotiation, rather than terrorism, as the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, other militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, as well as some factions within the PLO, continued to reject Israel and carry out terrorist acts against Israeli civilians.

58

An Overview of Key Events Since 1967

Attrition Battles between Wars / The War of Attrition, 1967-1970 During the 1967 War, Israel gained land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel maintained that Jerusalem would remain a unified city, with all religions having access to their holy sites. But Israel stated it was open to returning other territories in exchange for peace and recognition of its right to exist. Arab nations met in Khartoum, Sudan in 1967, and declared their unwillingness to make peace, recognize, or even negotiate with Israel. Egypt began small-scale attacks against Israeli positions which continued until Anwar Sadat came to power in 1970. During this same period, the PLO attacked Israeli military personnel and civilians from bases in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. It also carried out airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks outside of Israel. In 1970, after an attempt by the PLO to overthrow Jordan’s King Hussein, the Jordanian army attacked PLO forces in what became known as “Black September.” Fighting continued until June of 1971 when Jordan succeeded in evicting the PLO from the country. The PLO moved its base of operations to Lebanon. Settlement Construction Begins The Israeli government approved the building of settlements in the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank. The term settlements refers to Israeli communities built on land that was captured in the 1967 War. The first settlements were intended to act as security outposts and to prevent attacks on major population centers. Settlements were also built on the sites of Jewish villages that had been destroyed by Arab forces during the 1948 War. Settlement construction was very limited for the first decade that Israel controlled the territories; in 1976, there were approximately 3,200 West Bank settlers. Over time, settlement constructions increased; there are now roughly 300,000 West Bank settlers. Those who criticize settlements say that they are built on land needed for a future Palestinian state, protecting settlements is a drain the Israeli military, and they make travel for Palestinians in the West Bank more difficult. The future of the settlements is one of the issues that the Israel and the Palestinian Authority must negotiate as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. The October War or Yom Kippur War In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. After initial Arab military successes, the Israelis managed to push back the attack. The United States convinced Israel to withdraw from the territories it had entered. For many Israelis, the 1973 war reinforced the strategic importance of the buffer zones gained in 1967. For example, Syrian troops were stopped ten miles from the Israeli town of Tiberias. Many Israelis felt that the heartland of Israel could have been overrun without the time it took for the invading forces to move through the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai. After the war, Israel retained the territories captured in 1967, but did not keep additional land. Egypt and Israel Sign a Peace Agreement In 1979, as a result of intense diplomatic efforts by the United States the year before, Egypt became the first Arab country to recognize Israel and to enter into a peace treaty with it. Egypt’s President, Anwar Sadat, realized that a continuing state of war with Israel was harming the Egyptian economy and the well-being of his people. For its part, Israel returned to Egypt all of the Sinai that had been captured during the 1967 war and removed Jewish families from the homes they had established there. This agreement became a model for Israel’s “land for peace” policy.

59

The 1982 Lebanon War In 1982, PLO units in southern Lebanon increasingly attacked communities in northern Israel. In response, Israel launched an attack on PLO militants stationed in Lebanon. This conflict is known as the 1982 Lebanon War or the First Lebanon War. Israeli troops advanced as far as Beirut and succeeded in expelling the PLO leadership from Lebanon to Tunisia. This costly struggle drew Israel into the increasingly complicated Lebanese civil war and generated domestic and international opposition to its involvement in Lebanon. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon in June 1985. Until 2000, it maintained a military presence in a section of southern Lebanon that served as a buffer zone and prevented widespread terrorist incursions into Israel from the north. Renewed terrorist attacks from southern Lebanon led to the Second Lebanon War in 2006. The First Intifada, In 1987, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank engaged in an uprising, or intifada, against Israeli control of these territories. Palestinians attacked Israelis with improvised weapons and firearms supplied by the PLO, which organized much of the uprising. Suicide attacks against civilians in Israel began at this time. Israel used military force to contain the violence. The Israeli army, trained to fight regular armies, was not well prepared to respond to these kinds of attacks. Palestinian lives lost during military countermeasures led some to feel that the Israeli response was too harsh, while continued attacks against Israelis led others to feel that the response was too lax. In addition to conflicts with Israeli troops, an approximately equal number of Palestinians were killed in Palestinian in-fighting. This conflict continued until the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The Oslo Accords The Oslo Accords were a set of agreements that began in 1993 when Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles (DOP). The Oslo Accords led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority, which had responsibility for administering the territory under its control. It also called on Israel to gradually withdraw its military presence from the Gaza Strip and a small area around Jericho. It left Israel the right to defend itself and its citizens, including those in the territories. Along with the DOP, Israel and the PLO exchanged Letters of Mutual Recognition. For the first time, the PLO formally recognized Israel, renounced violence, and publicly expressed acceptance of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Also, for the first time, Israel formally recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. The Oslo Accords were intended to be an interim agreement that would lead to a permanent settlement with Israel giving up land in return for peace and security. Both Israelis and Palestinians accuse the other of not fulfilling their obligations. Israel and Jordan Sign a Peace Agreement As with the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the United States led a difficult but successful diplomatic process to help Jordan and Israel achieve peace. In 1994, Jordan became the second Arab country to recognize Israel. Trade, business relations, tourism, cultural exchanges, and scientific cooperation between the two nations have increased since the agreement was signed, but at a slower pace than hoped for initially.

60

The Camp David Summit American President Bill Clinton brought Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to Camp David in July 2000. It was the first major attempt to negotiate a comprehensive final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Although the negotiations were carried out in secret, participants President Clinton and US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross attributed the failure of the talks to Arafat’s refusal to compromise. They reported that Barak made major concessions, including withdrawing from the vast majority of the West Bank to create an independent Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem. However, Arafat did not feel the offer was enough and refused it. He made no counter-proposals. The goal of the summit, two states living side by side in peace, was not achieved and further conflict ensued. The Second Intifada In September 2000, Israeli General Ariel Sharon visited the Jewish Temple Mount, a site revered by Jews that is also of major importance to Muslims. There was widespread frustration at the lack of progress in the peace process. Many Palestinians claimed that Sharon’s visit was provocative and began to riot. Many Israelis claimed that Sharon's visit was a pretext for violence, not its cause. This visit began the Second Intifada, known to Palestinians as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, named for the Al-Aqsa Mosque which is on the Temple Mount. The conflict caused great bloodshed and suffering on both sides. Israelis were terrorized by numerous suicide bombers who targeted and killed hundreds of civilians. In response, Israel’s military returned to major population centers in the territories and carried out operations against terrorist targets. Since terrorists operate among the civilian population, Palestinian civilians were also unintentional victims of the intifada. The result of the failed peace process has been a prolonged condition of misery for both peoples. There is no definitive event marking the end of the Second Intifada. Many people suggest late 2004 or early 2005. Others argue it never stopped. Israel Begins Constructing the West Bank Barrier In 2002, Israel decided to build a security barrier that would separate its citizens from terrorist groups in the West Bank. The new fence was similar to the security fence Israel built in 1996 that separated the Gaza Strip from Israel. Both fences have been effective in dramatically reducing the number of suicide bombings in Israel coming from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. However, the barrier – which is for the most part a fence, but is a wall in areas near urban centers - has been criticized for dividing some Palestinians from their land and places of work or study and requiring these individuals to wait to pass through security checkpoints. Other people argue that the barrier is temporary and can be removed in the context of true peace, but that lives lost to terrorism cannot be brought back.

61

The Arab Peace Initiative Is Proposed In March 2002, during the Beirut Summit of the Arab League, crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (the current king of that country) proposed a peace initiative that was endorsed by all members of the Arab League. The proposal offered Israel peace in return for Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 War, recognition of an independent Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a “just solution” for Palestinian refugees. The Arab League endorsed the proposal again at the Riyadh Summit in 2007. The proposal is viewed by some as a major breakthrough because previously most Arab nations had ruled out peace, recognition, and even negotiations with Israel. Israel has welcomed the proposal, but does not accept all of its demands. Israel especially rejects the demand that it withdraw to the pre-1967 borders as a precondition to negotiations. In July 2007, Israeli leaders met with representatives of the Arab League to discuss the proposal. This was the first time that the Arab League sent an official delegation to Israel. The Roadmap for Peace Is Proposed The Roadmap for Peace, known as the Roadmap, is a plan for peace that was proposed in 2003 by the “Quartet” the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. It involves reciprocal steps by the Israelis and Palestinians with the ultimate goal of an independent Palestinian state and a secure Israel. The Roadmap is divided into three phases, but has never progressed past the first. Progress on the Roadmap was completely halted following the Palestinian election of Hamas in 2006. Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to destroying Israel. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority became possible again when the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, dissolved the government controlled by Hamas. On November 27, 2007, the basic principles of the Roadmap were reaffirmed at the Annapolis Conference. There has yet to be significant progress as a result of the Roadmap or the Annapolis Conference. Disengagement From Gaza In 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon moved ahead with the policy of “Disengagement,” or the physical separation of Israel from Palestinian territories. In addition to continuing the construction of the West Bank Barrier, he determined that Israel should withdraw from the Gaza Strip. This was very controversial in Israel because the Israeli citizens who lived there did not want to leave. A very vocal minority of Israelis in Israel and most Israelis in the West Bank demonstrated in support of the Israelis who lived in Gaza. Nevertheless, Israel decided to remove itself from this territory so that the Palestinians living there could govern themselves. The plan has been criticized because it was not done as part of negotiations with the Palestinians and did not require the removal of all West Bank settlements (four were dismantled). Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the number of rockets fired by terrorists from Gaza into Israel has increased dramatically. Hamas is Elected In January 2006, Palestinians elected a majority of Hamas members to the Palestinian Authority’s legislature over the PLO’s Fatah party that had previously been in power. People have speculated that Hamas won the elections because many Palestinians saw the previous government as corrupt. In its charter, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and for the killing of Jews. It does not accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. The group has claimed responsibility for hundreds of terrorist attacks. As a result of the election, many Western nations imposed sanctions and suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority. However, they also declared that these sanctions would be lifted once Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist, forswore violence, and accepted previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements.

62

The 2006 Lebanon War Hezbollah is a radical Islamist organization committed to destroying Israel. It is based in Lebanon and is believed to be heavily supported by Iran and Syria. On July 11, 2006, it crossed the Lebanon-Israel border and attacked an Israeli army unit, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two more who were later murdered. At the same time, it began launching rockets into Israeli cities and towns. In response, Israel launched air strikes on suspected Hezbollah military targets, particularly rocket launchers, and mounted a ground offensive. This conflict is known as the 2006 Lebanon War or the Second Lebanon War. Hezbollah used a human shield strategy by imbedding its fighters and rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods and homes. This resulted in the loss of civilian lives as well as property damage when Israel retaliated. Israel also damaged Lebenon’s transportation infrastructure in an attempt to prevent Hezbollah from resupplying and redeploying. Hostilities officially ended with UN Cease Fire Resolution 1701 passed on August 11, 2006. The Battle of Gaza There had been great tension and occasional conflict between Hamas and the PLO Fatah since Hamas won the Palestinian election in January of 2006. In June 2007, Hamas militants attacked Fatah members throughout Gaza. In response, the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, dissolved the Hamas government. Today, there are in effect two Palestinian governments: Hamas controls Gaza and the Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank. Western sanctions to the Palestinian Authority were lifted after the Hamas government was dissolved. The Gaza War Between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009, Israel attacked Hamas targets in Gaza in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on southern Israel and to disrupt terrorist infrastructure and weapons smuggling. Hundreds of militants were killed. But because Hamas was based in and launched attacks from urban areas, there were also much civilian casualties and Gaza’s buildings and economy were heavily damaged. Gaza Flotilla Incident After Hamas seized control from the Palestinian Authority, Israel and Egypt began a blockade of Gaza. They required all goods to be inspected before entering Gaza to prevent Hamas from smuggling in weapons. Some groups argue the blockade is collective punishment and is illegal. A UN investigative committee has ruled it is legal. In May 2010, six ships set sail to break the blockade. Israel informed the ships that they could not sail into Gaza, but they could dock at the Israeli port of Ashdod where their cargo would be inspected and permitted goods would be shipped into Gaza. The ships refused. Israeli commandos boarded the ships. On one ship, the Mavi Marmara, the commandos were attacked with iron bars and knives. During the ensuing struggle, 9 Turkish activists were killed. Israel gained control of the ship and directed it to Ashdod along with the other 5 ships, which were taken there without incident. The cargo was subsequently inspected and permitted goods were shipped into Gaza. Turkey has demanded an apology from Israel. Israel states that its actions were justified and instead expressed regret at the loss of life. This has led to a severe deterioration in the relationship between Israel and Turkey, which had been allies.

63

The Arab Spring Before 2011, no Arab state had a democratic government. Beginning in Tunisia on December 18, 2010, citizens in Arab states began to protest against autocratic and oppressive governments. This is known as the Arab Spring. Protests spread from Tunisia across the Arab world. The Tunisian president left the country on January 14, 2011. The Egyptian President resigned on February 11. Protests have also occurred in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Syria, Yemen and other countries. The long-term impact of the ongoing changes in Arab nations on the Arab-Israeli conflict and peace process is not yet clear.

64

A Timeline Chart of Major Events in Arab-Israeli Relations

Fill in the second and third column. The first two rows have been completed as examples.

Event Date Brief Description Outcome 1948 War

1948 Israel declared independence. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq attacked Israel.

Israel gained land. Egypt gained the Gaza Strip and Jordan gained the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Jews became refugees.

Six Day War or The 1967 War

1967 Egypt blockaded Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Syria & Iraq moved troops to Israel’s borders and made threatening statements. Israel launched a preemptive strike.

Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. More Palestinians and Jews became refugees. Terrorism became more common.

Attrition Battles

1967-1970

Settlement Construction Begins

1967

The October War or Yom Kippur War

1973

Egypt and Israel Sign a Peace Agreement

1979

65

The 1982 Lebanon War

1982

The First Intifada

1987-1993

The Oslo Accords

1993

Israel and Jordan sign a Peace Treaty

1994

The Camp David Summit

2000

The Second Intifada

2000- ongoing

Israel Begins Constructing the West Bank Barrier

2002 – ongoing

Arab Peace Initiative Is Proposed

2002

66

The Roadmap for Peace Is Proposed

2003

Israel Disengages from Gaza

2005

Hamas Is Elected

2006

The 2006 Lebanon War

2006

The Battle of Gaza

2007

The Gaza War

2008-2009

Gaza Flotilla Incident

2010

The Arab Spring

2011


Lesson V: The Hope for Peace Materials Each student will need:

1) Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict 2) Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict graphic organizer 3) Excerpts from the Washington Declaration 4) (optional, for supplemental activity) One of the following readings about the benefits of

peace between Israel and Jordan (students will be divided into 5 groups, each of which will read a different document):

a. “Sheikh Hussein Bridge Officially Opened” b. “Israeli and Arab Writers to Meet at the Sheikh Hussein Bridge” and “Qualifying

Industrial Zone Between Israel and Jordan” (2 short articles) c. “Israel and Jordon Cooperate on Cable Link” d. “Trade Bridge as a Bridge for Peace” e. “The Fourth Israeli Jordanian Business Meeting”

The teacher will need:

1) (optional, for supplemental activity) A copy or transparency of The Bridge of Peace 2) (optional, for supplemental activity) A transparency of Pictures of the Peace Bridge


1) Students will be able to summarize contrasting perspectives on unresolved issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

2) Students will be able to discuss how the benefits of peace can overcome obstacles as well as the lessons that can be learned from existing peace agreements.

Instructional Design Anticipatory Set: The Cost of Conflict

1) Ask class to brainstorm a list of the negative effects of international conflicts. Encourage them to think of a variety of negative effects (e.g., physical injuries and casualities,




disruption of trade and business, destruction of infrastructure, feelings of insecurity, giving the international community a negative impression, etc.). Write student ideas on the board.

2) (Optional) As an alternative to Step 1 above, have students bring in a newspaper or journal article about any current conflict. Have students identify the negative effects of the conflict described in their article. Write the negative effects that students identify on the board.

3) Tell students that despite the negative consequences of conflict, some conflicts last for many years even if there are efforts to resolve them. The Arab-Israeli conflict is an example of one conflict that has continued despite efforts to make peace.

4) If Lesson IV was used, ask students to summarize the major steps toward peace. Write these steps on the board. Students should mention the Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel, the Oslo Accords, the Peace Agreement between Jordan and Israel, the Disengagement Plan from Gaza, the Arab Peace Initiative, and the Roadmap for Peace.

Topic 1: Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

1) Distribute Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict reading and graphic organizer.

2) Instruct students to fill out the graphic organizer by explaining how each of the six issues presents a challenge to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Each of the six boxes on the graphic organizer is labeled with an unresolved issue. Inside each box, students should summarize the conflicting perspectives on the issue. This may be done individually or in mixed-ability pairs.

Topic 2: The Desire for Peace

1) Write the following data on the board: “78% of Israelis and 73% of Palestinians find a two-state solution ‘acceptable’.” You may also include: “71% of Israelis and 57% of Palestinians see a two-state solution as the ‘most acceptable’ solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

2) Inform students that a two-state solution refers to the idea that the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is for an independent Palestinian state to exist alongside a safe and secure State of Israel. Inform students that most opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians would accept a two-state solution. Tell them that the data on the board comes from joint Israeli-Palestinian polls. The first poll was released in April 2009 by the OneVoice movement (see below for information about this group). The optional second poll came from a survey overseen by the Harry S.Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that was released in March 2010.


3) Ask students if they are surprised by the information on the board and why they are surprised or not surprised. Student responses will vary but students might mention that they are surprised because they usually just hear about the conflict and disagreements or that they are not surprised because they can understand how most people would want to find a solution to a conflict that puts their families in danger and makes their lives more difficult.

4) Ask students for possible explanations for why the two-state solution has not yet been achieved even though most Palestinians and most Israelis say they would accept it. Student responses might mention that the two groups disagree about important details, that the groups distrust each other, and that those who oppose the two-state solution sabotage the peace process.

5) Inform students that the group that sponsored the second poll, the OneVoice Movement, is a grassroots movement with a roughly equal number of members and volunteers in Israel and in the Palestinian Territories. The movement has signed up approximately 650,000 people and has approximately 1,800 volunteer youth leaders. These youth leaders seek to promote peace and a two-state solution. In one project, they sponsored an essay writing contest where Palestinian and Israeli students imagined what their societies would be like in ten years if the conflict ended.

6) Ask students how having Palestinian and Israeli students imagine their societies without

conflict could promote peace. Student responses might mention that imagining peace might encourage people to consider the possibility of peace, or that thinking about the benefits of peace could encourage people to work toward or make compromises for peace.

Topic 3: The Path to Peace – A Case Study

1) Inform students that they will study the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan in order to better understand the benefits of peace and to see how peace can be possible between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

2) Distribute Excerpts from the Washington Declaration.

3) Inform students that this document is not the actual peace treaty between the two nations. Rather, it is an agreement not to attack each other and a declaration that the two nations will work towards peace. They signed a peace treaty three months later.

4) Have students read the document silently and then ask:

a. Why do you think Israel and Jordan signed this document before negotiating a peace treaty? Responses might mention that the two sides wanted to agree to general principles before they discussed specifics, that they needed to build trust or common ground, or that major changes require gradual steps.

b. Why do you think the document begins “After generations of hostility, blood and tears and in the wake of years of pain and wars . . .”? Responses might mention that it is important to acknowledge the suffering experienced by people and nations, that this sentence helps explain why the two countries are pursuing peace, or that it shows


why this declaration is so significant and such a radical change from earlier Israeli-Jordanian relations.

c. How do you think agreeing to underlying principles helps nations negotiate a peace

treaty? Responses might mention that it gives them a framework to discuss the details of a peace treaty, or that it helps reassure each side about the other side’s intentions.

d. What lessons for other peace processes can you draw from the document?

Responses might mention various factors that can help such as American involvement, agreeing to underlying principles, acknowledging the suffering of both sides, or building trust.

Supplemental Activity: The Benefits of Peace – A Case Study

1) Read The Bridge of Peace or project it as a transparency and have a volunteer read it.

2) Display Pictures of the Peace Bridge.

3) Divide the class into 5 groups and assign each group one of the readings on the benefits of the peace agreement that allowed the rebuilding of the Sheik Hussein Bridge. Inform students that they will briefly summarize their article for the class after 10 minutes.

4) Have each group summarize their article for the class and then ask the class:

a. What benefits has peace in general and “the Peace Bridge” in particular brought to Israel and Jordan? Responses should mention increasing trade, tourism, communication, stability, and business relationships as well as helping to advance the broader Arab-Israeli peace process.

b. What role did other countries, specifically the US and Japan, play in fostering peace between Israel and Jordan? Responses should mention that the US promoted peace and helped bring the two sides together (this information is in The Washington Declaration), and it enabled the two sides to benefit from peace by creating a Qualified Industrial Zone that allows them to send goods to the US without paying tariffs. Japan helped finance the Sheik Hussein Bridge.

c. One of the points made in the Jordan Times article, “Sheikh Hussein Bridge Officially

Opened,” is that the bridge “holds great hope which expresses the will of both nations to go ahead with the peace process.” What role does hope play in making peace? Responses will vary but might include that hope makes peace possible because people believe that things might be better.

Closure: Is There a Lesson to Be Learned?

1) Ask students: What does the information from the Unresolved Issues reading suggest about the challenges to ending the Arab-Israeli conflict? Responses should reflect the fact that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict will be very challenging and that there are no simple solutions.


2) What does the poll from the OneVoice movement teach us about peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Student responses might mention that both groups want peace and that the desire for peace might help make peace possible, or that the desire for peace is, by itself, not enough to achieve peace and it remains to be seen if both sides are able to make the difficult compromises necessary to achieve peace.

3) What does the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel teach us about peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors? Responses should mention that peace is possible.

4) How can the success of the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty be used as a building block for future agreements? Responses might mention that Israel and Jordan achieved peace by first taking initial steps to build trust and agree to general principles, that international involvement helped, or that the benefits of the peace could help convince others to make peace.

5) Have students discuss how involved, if at all, the US should be in advancing peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Responses will vary but might include the difficulty of resolving the conflict or the importance of the US in the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel.

6) (optional) If Lesson I was used, display the “What We Want to Know” transparency from the anticipatory set. Have students identify questions that they can now answer or begin to answer. Have students provide answers to those questions.

72

Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict Progress has been made toward solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both Egypt and Jordan, which were among the five Arab states that invaded when Israel declared independence, have peace treaties with Israel. Israel has endorsed the idea of an independent Palestinian state, a key Arab demand, and supported the creation of a Palestinian government called the Palestinian Authority. The Arab League, which declared in the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 that Arab states would not make peace with Israel, would not recognize Israel, and would not negotiate with Israel, has now stated that the Arab states would accept peace if Israel meets the demands in the Arab Peace Initiative. However, a comprehensive peace remains difficult to achieve because there are major unresolved issues that divide Israel and the Arab governments. Final Borders In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel gained control of Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Following the war, Israel stated that it would return most of the land in exchange for peace and recognition of its right to exist as an independent state. Israel insists that it must retain control of some of this land for its security. Israel’s territorial gains in 1967 provided it with borders that could be defended more easily against invading armies. It also provided better sites for radars to detect and respond to incoming air attacks. Israel argues that it has been attacked and threatened by its neighbors since its founding, that it gained the territory in a war of self-defense, and that binding UN resolutions recognize its right to secure borders. Arab governments state that Israel must completely withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. They argue that Israel cannot keep any land gained by war, no matter what the circumstances. Disagreements about final borders affect negotiations with the Palestinians over the future of the West Bank (Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988) and negotiations with Syria over the Golan Heights; Israel completely withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1979 and it completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Settlements Returning to the 1967 borders is also complicated by the existence of Israeli communities in the West Bank known as settlements. Israel originally established settlements to serve as security outposts for Israel’s main population areas and to restore Jewish communities that were destroyed when Arab states invaded in 1948. However, beginning in the 1970s, the number of settlements grew and many Israelis moved there for religious or nationalist reasons. These Israelis felt that Jews should have the right to live anywhere in the historic Jewish homeland where they purchase land or receive government permission to build on public land. Most Arabs feel that settlements are illegal and that Israelis cannot live on land gained in the 1967 War. The Palestinian Authority has gone so far as to make selling land to Jews a capital offense that is punishable by death. Israel is also criticized for its security measures to protect Israeli settlers. For example, checkpoints designed to stop attackers are criticized for making travel more difficult for Palestinians. Israel argues that security measures are necessary to save lives and that the claim that settlements are illegal is politically motivated. It states that Jordan (which gained control of the West Bank in 1948) was the first government in history to prohibit Jews from settling there and that settlements do not displace Arab inhabitants. Therefore, Israel insists on the legitimacy of the settlements though it is willing to discuss removing them, as it

73

removed the settlements in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. However, Israel argues that some of the largest settlements should remain part of Israel in a future peace agreement with the Palestinians. For the most part, Arab governments insist that Israel should completely withdraw to the pre-1967 lines. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have both accepted the principle of a land-swap in which Israel would give up land elsewhere in exchange for keeping large settlements. However, the two sides have not been able to agree on details such as which land would be swapped. Jerusalem Arab governments demand that Israel recognize an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel has endorsed the idea of an independent Palestine, but most Israelis feel that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. They argue that Judaism’s most important holy sites are in East Jerusalem, that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of previous Jewish states, that Jews everywhere have expressed deep connections to Jerusalem for millennia, and that Jews lived in East Jerusalem from antiquity until 1948. In 1948, the Jewish community in East Jerusalem was evicted by the conquering Jordanian army. From that time until June 1967, Jews were not allowed to enter East Jerusalem where the Jewish holy sites are located. As a result, most Israeli Jews are reluctant to give up control. They point out that under Israeli rule all religious groups have access to and control over their own holy sites. Palestinians argue that some of the most holy Islamic sites are in East Jerusalem and must be part of a Palestinian state. Palestinians claim that they will maintain free access to the religious sites of all religious groups. They also highlight the facts that Jerusalem is an important cultural center for Palestinians and that most of the residents of East Jerusalem are Palestinian. Security Needs Israel and Arab governments disagree about how to balance Israel’s security needs with Palestinian independence. Israel argues that if it is prepared to give up tangibles (territory) for intangibles (the promise of peace), its citizens need to feel confident that they will be safe in their country. For example, Israelis insist that the West Bank must be demilitarized with no heavy weapons such as tanks. They point out that within its 1967 borders Israel is only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. This makes it difficult to respond to an attack and leaves it vulnerable to being cut in half by invading armies. Banning heavy weapons from the West Bank would help ease Israeli concerns. Palestinians insist that their state should not be different from other states, so there should not be restrictions. There is also disagreement on how to protect Israel from individuals and organizations that carry out terrorist attacks because they do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. After 2005, when Israel removed its civilian and military presence from Gaza, rocket attacks from terrorists in Gaza increased dramatically. Israel feels that a peace agreement must include provisions to keep Israelis safe. Palestinians feel that their country should not be treated differently than other countries and therefore a peace agreement should not include these sorts of provisions. Refugees Another major unresolved issue is the status of the approximately 700,000 Palestinian refugees who fled their homes in 1948 and their descendents. Today, the number of refugees and their descendents approaches 4 million individuals who live in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, other Arab countries, the West Bank, Gaza, and elsewhere. They claim a “right of return” to Israel that Israel rejects. Most Israelis argue that there would be no refugees if Arabs had accepted the UN

74

Partition Plan and had not attacked the fledgling State of Israel. They point out that the Israeli Declaration of Independence guaranteed full equality for non-Jews and that approximately 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs who chose to remain in Israel during the war and their descendents. Most Arabs counter that Israeli forces played a role in creating the refugee population and the cause of the conflict should not affect the right of refugees. Israel argues that other groups in similar situations have not had a right of return and binding UN Resolutions do not give Palestinian refugees a right of return. Instead, these Security Council Resolutions only mention a “just settlement of the refugee problem.” Israelis point out that this wording includes the equal number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries due to persecution, often having their properties confiscated and their citizenships revoked. Most of these Jewish refugees settled in Israel and today approximately half the Jewish population of Israel is of Middle Eastern or North African descent. Many Israelis feel that since they absorbed Jewish refugees from Arab states, the Palestinian territories and the Arab states should have absorbed Arab refugees. One of the major reasons Israel opposes a Palestinian right of return to Israel is that if Israel accepted it, Jews could become a minority and would no longer have national self-determination and a guaranteed refuge from antisemitism. Many see this as equivalent to the destruction of Israel. Instead, Israel says that Palestinians should have a right to return to an independent Palestinian state, but not to Israel. Some Palestinians and Israelis have suggested that recognizing the plight of the Palestinian refugees and giving them some form of monetary compensation might be a solution, but other Israelis feel this is too much of a concession and other Palestinians feel it is insufficient. Water Resources The rights to use water resources are major political issues that impact the Arab-Israeli conflict and peace process. For example, in 1964, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon attempted to divert rivers that supplied Israel with water. After issuing warnings, Israel launched military strikes to prevent the plan. Agreements over how to share water resources were important parts of the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan and of the 1995 agreement between Israel and the Palestinians known as Oslo II. They also influence peace talks between Syria and Israel. Syria insists that Israel withdraw completely to the pre-1967 lines. Israel rejects this demand, but has expressed willingness to withdraw to the pre-1948 line instead. Israelis argue that they should not return land that Syria captured when it invaded in an attempt to destroy Israel. The pre-1948 line and the pre-1967 line are close to each other, but the issue is very sensitive because withdrawing to the pre-1967 line would give Syria partial control over the Sea of Galilee, one of Israel’s major water resources. This is a major security concern for Israel. The distribution of water resources also impacts negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Underground aquifers cross the borders between Israel and the West Bank and between Israel and Gaza. Though the Palestinian Authority and Israel agreed how to share this water in the 1995 Oslo II agreement, many Palestinians feel the agreement should be changed because it gives Israel a much larger share of the water. They argue that Oslo II was an interim agreement and that the final agreement should give them rights to more of the water. Many Israelis feel the agreement should not be changed. They argue that water rights do not depend simply on dividing water evenly, but rather are shaped by the history of water use, with those who first accessed the water and put it to use gaining first rights. They feel the issue was already the subject of negotiations that reached a mutually agreed upon decision and should not be renegotiated.

Graphic Organizer

75

Unresolved Issues in the Arab-Israeli

Conflict

Final Borders

Settlements

Jerusalem Security Needs

Refugees

Water Resources

76

The Washington Declaration: Israel - Jordan - The United States; July 25th, 1994

Excerpts:

A. After generations of hostility, blood and tears and in the wake of years of pain and wars, His Majesty King Hussein and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin are determined to bring an end to bloodshed and sorrow. It is in this spirit that His Majesty King Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, met in Washington today at the invitation of President William J. Clinton of the United States of America. This initiative of President William J. Clinton constitutes an historic landmark in the United States' untiring efforts in promoting peace and stability in the Middle East. The personal involvement of the President has made it possible to realise agreement on the content of this historic declaration.

The signing of this declaration bears testimony to the President's vision and devotion to the cause of peace.

B. In their meeting, His Majesty King Hussein and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin have jointly reaffirmed the five underlying principles of their understanding on an Agreed Common Agenda designed to reach the goal of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between the Arab States and the Palestinians, with Israel.

1. Jordan and Israel aim at the achievement of just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbours and at the conclusion of a Treaty of Peace between both countries.

2. The two countries will vigorously continue their negotiations to arrive at a state of peace, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in all their aspects, and founded on freedom, equality and justice.

3. Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines. In addition the two sides have agreed to act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions.

4. The two countries recognize their right and obligation to live in peace with each other as well as with all states within secure and recognized boundaries. The two states affirmed their respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area.

5. The two countries desire to develop good neighbourly relations of cooperation between them to ensure lasting security and to avoid threats and the use of force between them.

C. The long conflict between the two states is now coming to an end. In this spirit the state of belligerency between Jordan and Israel has been terminated.

D. Following this declaration and in keeping with the Agreed Common Agenda, both countries will refrain from actions or activities by either side that may adversely affect the security of the other or may prejudice the final outcome of negotiations. Neither side will threaten the other by use of force, weapons, or any other means, against each other and both sides will thwart threats to security resulting from all kinds of terrorism.

77

The Bridge of Peace The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994 provided the possibility of commerce and civil relationships between the two countries for the first time since 1948. Before it was destroyed in 1946, the Sheikh Hussein Bridge was a major crossing over the Jordan River on a road that connected the Jewish town of Beit Shean to the town of Irbid in Transjordan (today the country of Jordan). This road remained fractured at the Jordan River, the border between the two countries, until the bridge was rebuilt and officially opened in November 1998. Financed by the Japanese, it is also known as the Peace Bridge. The rebuilding of the bridge and the benefits that have resulted for both countries provide clear evidence that peace improves the lives of both Arabs and Israelis.

78

Pictures of the Peace Bridge

The picture below shows the Sheik Hussein Bridge being rebuilt:

The picture below shows the bridge after it opened. The sign says “Peace” in Arabic, English, and Hebrew.

79

Sheikh Hussein Bridge Officially Opened

From the Jordan Times

Tuesday, August 24, 1999

AMMAN (Agencies) — Jordan and Israel on Monday officially opened the Japanese-funded border crossing facility at Sheikh Hussein Bridge linking the two countries, describing it as a key pillar of their peace treaty.

“This bridge is one of the cornerstones of the edifice of peace which we all hope to build upon,” Foreign Minister Abdul Ilah Khatib said in a speech at the ceremony.

Khatib said Japan is considered a real economic partner in the development of the Middle East and by financing the project it has proved its support for closer cooperation towards building the future of the region.

He paid tribute to the late King Hussein who had sought comprehensive and just peace, and praised the efforts of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who was a part of such endeavours.

Khatib's Israeli counterpart David Levy told attendees at the ceremony that: “This is a small bridge but it holds great hope which expresses the will of both nations to go ahead with the peace process.”

Khatib walked the short distance to the Israeli side to shake hands with Levy and then both linked up with Japanese Ambassador to Jordan Koichi Matsumoto for the cutting of the ribbon in the middle of the bridge.

The chairman of the standing committee on foreign affairs in Japan's parliament, Koki Chuma, said: “It is Japan's sincere hope that lasting peace will be attained soon (in the Middle East) in order to bring about stability and development in this region.”

“It is a great honour for Japan to have an opportunity to participate in such a project which is one of the fruits of the peace process and the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel,” he said.

According to Chuma the 90-metre-long and 12-metre-wide bridge cost JD 4.2 million. It is considered a major route through which Jordan can export goods to Israel and its port in Haifa for shipment to the US and European markets.

The Japanese firm Sumitomo Construction Co. Ltd. built the Jordanian side of the bridge and the Jordanian border post under a $7 million grant from Tokyo.

Jordan contributed JD3 million for the infrastructure, while Israel spent an unknown amount to build its own section of the bridge.

80

Construction was finished in March 1998, and the bridge was opened to passenger traffic — mostly businessmen and tourists — and goods in November 1998.

The Sheikh Hussein Bridge and the Wadi Araba crossing in southern Jordan are the only two overland border crossings between Israel and Jordan, unlike the King Hussein Bridge, known to Israelis as the Allenby Bridge, which joins Jordan and the West Bank.

The four-lane suspension bridge is located in northern Jordan around 50 kilometres south of Lake Tiberias.

Khatib said he hoped that the new bridge will help bolster the volume of trade and further facilitate the movement of travellers between Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories.

Overall annual trade between Jordan and Israel hovers around $40 million.

He reiterated Jordan's support for the resumption of Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, saying “we are concerned with the achievement of a comprehensive peace which can be attained through negotiations and we hope progress will be achieved on the Palestinian-Israeli track as soon as possible since the Palestinian issue constitutes the essence of the problem.”

Khatib said Levy had briefed him on Israel's contacts with European Union officials who visited the region lately to discuss the peace process.

Khatib said he urged his Israeli counterpart to move ahead with steps towards the implementation of the Wye River accord and the release of the detained Palestinians in Israeli jails so that progress can be achieved in the peace process.

81

Israeli and Arab Writers to Meet at Sheikh Hussein Bridge

From babelmed.net, a multicultural network of journalists from the whole Mediterranean

January 31, 2005, Sheikh Hussein Bridge

Israeli, Palestinian and Arab writers from around the world will meet at the Sheikh Hussein Bridge on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 for a unique literary gathering. The Bridge, which is an international crossing point between Israel and Jordan, serves as a powerful symbol of hope, a link to understanding and a passageway over conflict. January 31, 2005, Sheikh Hussein Bridge

The one-day encounter is a brainchild of international publishers and cultural institutions that work with authors from the Middle East, and has been coordinated by Deborah Harris of the Harris-Elon Agency, Israel. With the goal of providing a dynamic platform for sharing views and experiences, an opportunity for voices from both sides of the bridge to be heard, some 50 writers and 100 publishers have confirmed their participation thus far. Among the writers attending the event are Leila Sebbar and Chaled Fouad Allam, Algeria; Ahmet

Altan, Turkey; Abdel Kader Benali, Morocco; Jaber Yassin Hussein, Iraq; and A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman, Sayed Kashua, Yehudit Katzir and Alona Kimhi, Israel.

Samir el-Youssef, Palestinian writer attending from London, said, "Only by meeting each other can we, Palestinians and Israelis, truly know how close or distant we really are; how easy or difficult it will be to live together. We don't have the luxury of avoiding this encounter; it is the duty of Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals and writers to gain such knowledge and render the experience for our communities." Israeli writer Etgar Keret, also participating, said, "If we, writers from both sides, can't find the empathy, or the imagination, to see the other and to try and understand the other, then who will?"

Babelmed Editorial Team

82

Qualifying Industrial Zone between Israel and Jordan

From the website of the Center for International Environmental Law

The Jordan Industrial Joint Gateway Project is actually two industrial complexes on either side of the Jordan River between Israel and Jordan. While the Israeli project will be small, and is meant mainly for offices, warehouses and export and trade-related activities, the Jordanian side will be a full-fledged industrial complex flanking the Jordan River. The project will permanently alter the character of the Jordan River Valley, which is overwhelmingly rural.

This project grew from the interest of Israel and Jordan to promote regional economic growth. An agreement to set up Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) between Israel, Jordan and the United States is a primary reason for the cross-border development scheme. Under the QIZ agreement, goods produced in Qualified Industrial Zones in Jordan, with a minimum percentage of value added in Israel, are eligible for export to the United States without tariffs. This creates a strong incentive for cross-border transactions, as goods go back and forth across the Israeli-Jordanian border in preparation for export. This sort of joint economic activity has been publicly promoted as a means of creating greater economic ties between Israel and Jordan that will lead to more normal peaceful relations between the two countries. Therefore, these types of joint projects enjoy strong political backing in both countries and are supported by many NGOs.

The project sponsor is FIBI Investment House Ltd., which is a subsidiary of FIBI Holdings, the Safra banking group’s business arm in Israel. The project is located on the banks of the Jordan River, 8 kilometers south of the Sheikh Hussein Bridge. The Jordanian side will be more than 50 hectares in size to start, with plans for expansion to 127 hectares in the future. The project also entails the construction of a new bridge between Jordan and Israel that will be used to facilitate trade and export activities.

The Jordanian part of the enterprise will require an investment of $30 million. The IFC is considering a $15 million loan. When complete, the project may employ up to 14,000 Jordanians, with a large percentage of the goods produced traded through Israel, under the free trade conditions described above.

83

Israel and Jordan Cooperate on Cable Link

From Communications Week International October 25, 1999 Neal Sandler

The construction later this year of two 10-kilometer fiber optic cables linking Israel and Jordan will mark the first regional telecommunications project between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors. The links, which cost a total of $3.5 million and are due to be operational from February 2000, are expected to result in greater competition in both countries.

The agreement between Tel Aviv-based Bezeq International Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bezeq Telecom, and Amman-based Jordan Telecommunications Company (JTC), was announced last month in Amman during a visit by Israeli communications minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer.

The resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority following the May election of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has led to a warming up of economic ties between the two countries.

"Telecommunications cooperation is key to expanding the economic ties between Israel and Jordan as well as in the Middle East," said Ben-Eliezer during his visit to Jordan.

In fact, Iraqi-born Ben-Eliezer is also proposing the construction of a similar fiber optic cable between Israel and Egypt. On 18 October the Israeli minister met with his Egyptian counterpart, Ahmed Nadif, for discussions on a proposed fiber optic link similar to the one to be built between Israel and Jordan.

Construction of the two Israel-Jordan cables, which will have a total capacity of 10 gigabits, is slated to begin by the end of the year. The fiber optic cables will link the countries at two locations: at either the Allenby or Sheikh Hussein bridge border crossings; and at the southern border between the two countries at the towns of Aqaba, Jordan and Eilat, Israel.

At present all communications between Israel and Jordan are through microwave links. "This often means that the traffic between the two countries is routed via the US or western Europe," said On Yogev, president and chief executive of Bezeq International.

Ben-Eliezer added that this is due to a lack of direct connections and is both costly and a waste of resources for all sides.

84

Inter-country traffic

Initially, the two cables will handle the traffic between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to Jordan. Voice traffic between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Jordan ranks fourth in terms of the number of call minutes for both Bezeq International and JTC.

Data traffic is currently insignificant, but this is likely to change according to the two operators.

But the significance of the link goes far beyond improving voice traffic between the two countries. "This will give us a direct link to the FLAG cable for the growing telecommunications traffic from Israel to the Far East and via the Suez Canal to Europe," noted Bezeq's Yogev.

He added that the Jordanians will have an additional option for their traffic to Europe and the United States via the Med-1 cable. The $80-million Med-1 cable, which links Israel to Cyprus and Italy, began operating in March and has a capacity of 20 gigabits.

Room for growth

"Only half a giga is currently being utilized," said Amos Lasker, president of privately owned Tel Aviv-based Med-1 Submarine Cables Ltd. The owners include several Israeli telecommunications companies including Aurec Ltd. and Globescom Ltd., as well as Telecom Italia and the state-owned Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (CYTA).

"With our capacity we can handle all the future growth of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians for the next five to seven years," said Lasker.

The new fiber optic links between Israel and Jordan are expected to handle voice primarily, but Bezeq International hopes that JTC will opt to use the cables for Internet services, creating additional traffic, because Israel has a better connection to the IP backbone than Jordan.

Telecommunications cooperation still only exists between Israel and a few of its Arab neighbors. In early October Lebanese authorities arrested several people for making calls to parties in Israel.

85

Trade Bridge as a Bridge for Peace

From the Konrad Adenauer Foundation

Mar. 22, 2007 5th Annual Israeli-Jordanian Business Meeting

The Sheikh Hussein Israeli-Jordanian business meeting, organized in cooperation between the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Israel-Jordan Chamber of Commerce, has become an institution bringing together business people as well as politicians and diplomats. On March 21, 2007, a large number of business people from Jordan and Israel met again under the tents especially built for this event at the Sheikh Hussein border crossing between Israel and Jordan. In spite of last minute program changes and the non-participation of Minister Shimon Peres and Minister Eli Yishay, who had to attend an urgent government meeting, the fifth Israeli-Jordanian Annual Business Meeting proceeded successfully. Four days before the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, one could not help relating to the Coal and Steel Union that had led to the development of the Common Market and of the European Union. Could the European model be used in the Middle East, asked Dr. Hänsel, Representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung to Israel. The existing trade agreements between Jordan, Israel and the USA or the European Union such as the Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) agreement and the “Pan EuroMED Cumulation” have already brought important achievements as well as the consolidation of bilateral agreements. Eastern Mediterranean countries and most particularly Jordan and Israel share a common goal and the promotion of trade and economic ties can help attain peace and stability in this region. For the representatives of the European Commission in Israel and in Jordan, the expansion of peace and stability to the Middle East and the Mediterranean Basin is indeed of strategic interest for the EU. Through its European Neighborhood Policy, the EU wants to give the neighborhood countries the opportunity to take part in different policy cooperation in key sectors such as energy or transport, it wants to encourage the neighbors such as Jordan and Israel to improve their relations and while including all parties - such as the Palestinian Authority - in the process. And one of the keys to this achievement is the promotion of trade and economic ties. Relating to the success of the QIZ trade agreement, the Representative of the European Commission in Israel, Ambassador Cibrian-Uzal, considers the PanEuroMed projects in the region as more ambitious on the long-term basis. To enhance the trade agreements between Jordan and Israel, the European Investment Bank is ready to finance many projects such as building a railroad linking the city of Irbid in northern Jordan to the Israeli port of Haifa. This railroad of 70 km would increase and improve bilateral trade as well as export to the USA and Europe by reducing the hurdles that currently hamper a smooth transfer of goods between Jordan and Israel. For Dr. Okleh, Director General of the Jordanian Ministry of Industry and Trade, the significance of the QIZ and the PanEuroMed Cumulation agreements, from which Jordan and Israel benefit, must not be demonstrated. Moreover, trade and business relations between both countries are important components of the peace agreement but other dimensions must be taken into

86

consideration. Based on bilateral relations alone, the peace process is limited and restricted. It is important to address the problem of the Palestinians and work for a real integration of the economies of the region. The American economic counselors confirmed that QIZ related trade to the USA constantly increases and described the business relations between Israel and Jordan as a good and complimentary cooperation, which, however, has not yet achieved its full potential. There still exists much room for upgrading and expansion. Sectors such as medical tourism at the Dead Sea, pharmaceutical products, high tech agriculture and tourism look very promising and both countries should benefit from improving their cooperation. Moreover, there is an urgent need for reform of the labor sector in Jordan and for output improvement in order to compete with the Asian economies, especially China and India. Mr. Melzer, Director of the Israel–Jordan Chamber of Commerce as well Mr. Hirsch, Deputy-Director of the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor surveyed the impressive development of the last 10 years. The 1997 treaty has proven its worth to both Israel and Jordan, boosting Israeli exports to Jordan as well as Jordanian exports to the US. During the period January - November 2006 Israeli export to Jordan was up 10% compared to the same period last year. The total value of goods exported was US$110 million. Most of the exports are raw materials shipped to the QIZ production facilities in Jordan. But both also expressed the need to look beyond the current QIZ agreements that deal, for example, with mass-produced textiles and instead to concentrate on manufactured products and industrial innovation. The 2006 PanEuroMed Cumulation agreement with the EU will also bring this kind of diversity that should benefit the economy of both countries. Ways to solve the technical problems faced by the Jordanian businessmen at the border crossing to Israel and at the port of Haifa were discussed and Mr. Melzer as well as Mr. Gabi Bar reiterated that all efforts must be made to improve and facilitate the trade cooperation with Jordan and encourage even more the dialogue between Jordanian and Israeli businessmen. The Sheikh Hussein Bridge over the Jordan River is not only a trade bridge but also a bridge for peace. Catherine Hirschwitz

87

The Fourth Israeli Jordanian Business Meeting

From the Konrad Adenauer Foundation

18. Jan. 2006 Sheikh Hussein Bridge Border Crossing

As in the past four years a large number of business people from Jordan and Israel did not hesitate to brave the cold and very rainy weather to gather once again under the tents especially built to this effect at the Sheikh Hussein border crossing between Israel and Jordan. This important yearly meeting, organized in cooperation between the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Israel Jordan Chamber of Commerce continues to attract more than ever business people as well as politicians and diplomats. The Israeli Jordanian Business Meeting of 18 January 2006 successfully achieved three goals: to give the opportunity to business people and ministry officials to meet their counterparts and exchange information, to hear first hand about the latest or future trade agreements and their implementations and allow people from both sides of the border to meet in a neutral environment and get better acquainted.

The presence of many representatives of the US embassies and especially of the EU Delegations in Israel and Jordan demonstrated the significance of this meeting at the political level as well. They all agreed that the promotion of trade and economic ties can help attain peace and stability in this region. As a clear example of such achievements that can also apply to the Middle-East, the EU Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Cibrian-Uzal, related to the European history of the last 50 years, starting from the setting up of the Common Market leading to the European Union as well as the commercial and economic relations that had developed with eastern Europe in the early 90's and had permitted a quicker integration of the former east bloc countries.

The business relations between Jordan and Israel today can be described as a good and complimentary cooperation which has not yet achieved its full potential. There still exists much room for upgrading and expansion. Sectors such as medical tourism at the Dead Sea, pharmaceutical products, high tech agriculture and tourism look very promising and both

88

countries should benefit from improving their cooperation. In the field of tourism, regional cooperation is slowly developing, following the meeting of the Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli ministers last September. Moreover, there is an urgent need to compete with the Asian economies, especially China and India. To that goal Israel and Jordan should look beyond the current Qualified Industrial Zones agreements (QIZ) that deal, for example, with mass-produced textiles and instead they should concentrate on manufactured products and industrial innovation. In the wake of existing research cooperation programs, the investment in more complex, expensive and sophisticated products would create more jobs and higher income and as a result bring more prosperity.

This meeting did not only put forward the great achievements and the consolidation of the bilateral agreements. It also presented the latest developments and emphasized the new protocol of the Israel – Jordan Trade Agreement, which entered into force in September 2005. Whereas the first business meetings concentrated more on the Israel – Jordan – US Qualified Industrial Zones agreements that came into effect in 1996, the new bilateral trade agreement puts the accent on the Pan EuroMed initiative that started 10 years ago with the Barcelona process and proceeded in 2003 with the European neighborhood policy. This initiative will be soon put into effect between Israel, Jordan and the European Union. Beyond these relations, Europe also sees the importance of Israeli – Palestinian – EU trilateral trade relations (the Paris protocol) in which Jordan could be involved. In view of this new trade policy and its tremendous potential, the organizers realized the need to open the floor to specialists and for the benefit of all business people present, they consecrated most of the second session to an intensive, technical but practical survey of the "Pan EuroMED Cumulation" agreement in which 41 countries participate.

While most speakers stressed the need to go beyond the current Qualified Industrial Zones agreements, the European representatives were also eager to emphasize that the QIZ agreement and "Pan EuroMED Cumulation" do benefit both countries and should lead to more liberalization and the creation of a regional free trade area by 2010. Meetings are scheduled between Jordan, Israel, the US and the EU in order to further upgrade the trade relations between Israel and Jordan and find ways to export this model of economic relations to the entire region.

Catherine Hirschwitz


Supplemental Information

GENERAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................... SEE WWW.ICSRESOURCES.ORG USEFUL WEBSITES ..............................................................................................SEE WWW.ICSRESOURCES.ORG/EXTERNALLINKS.HTM ADDITIONAL PRIMARY SOURCES ............................................................... SEE WWW.ICSRESOURCES.ORG / PRIMARYSOURCEDOCS.HTM ADDITIONAL MAPS ........................................................................................................ SEE WWW.ICSRESOURCES.ORG /KEYMAPS.HTM FACT SHEETS ........................................................................................................ SEE WWW.ICSRESOURCES.ORG /FACTSHEETS.HTM

a historical perspective on the arab-israeli conflict and peace process

Documents