As discussed in the recent and informative interviews that IIP Director Stephanie Fenkart led with two excellent experts form the Middle East - on Israel and Palestine and on Lebanon - the region is still very fragile and in turmoil. The reason lies very much in the last one hundred years, with many external powers dominating the people and their leaders. For many years, the region was part of and dominated by one empire: the Ottoman. But World War I saw the dismantling of that empire - and others. The Western powers - especially Britain and France - took over the “responsibility” for the people of the Middle East. And thus a period full of conflicts and antagonism began. This period did not end with the end of World War II, even if new forms of dependencies began.
Two World Wars that did not bring peace
After World War I came the “Peace to end All Peace,” as David Fromkin called the “Settlement” of 1922, which established the British and French zones of influence more or less along the border lines drawn by the British and French diplomats Sykes and Picot. David Fromkin wrote: “There was a good deal wrong with the Settlement - at least when viewed through our eyes today. States were created and boundaries were drawn in pursuit of British and French interests rather than those of the populations convened. Decisions frequently were made by Allied officials and cabinet ministers who knew little of the region or of its need.”
The end of World War II brought an end to the hegemony of the old colonial powers. However, this did not happen immediately, as the colonial powers still thought they could preserve their domains. But despite all the force and violence they used - for example by the French in Syria - they could not prevent the independence of the states of the region soon after the end of World War II. However, this did not exclude the influence of all external powers, especially after the United States arrived as a decisive “regional” power thereafter. The US had a particularly strong interest in the oil and gas resources of the region. And despite the increased supply of its own resources, recent developments show the continuing dependence of the US on oil supplies and prices, especially by Saudi Arabia. Today Russia is also a new “regional” power, meddling in the developments of the region, while Turkey tries - once again - to become an influential regional power.
The special case of Palestine: the Holocaust and the Nakba
A special case demonstrating the persistence of conflict and fragility is Palestine. The Balfour declaration of 1917 promoted Jewish settlements in Palestine and laid the foundation for the creation of a “Jewish” state. Without doubt, the Holocaust brought a new dynamic into the Zionist conviction of the necessity of creating a new state as a home for all Jews. The hope of many Arabs that a victorious Nazi Germany would stop the process of the settlements and the construction of a Jewish state was dashed with the crushing defeat of Hitler’s Germany. On the contrary, Germany became a staunch supporter of Israel. Furthermore, the support for Nazi Germany discredited the Arabs in showing them as principally antisemitic, especially as today there are still many who deny the Holocaust or at least its horrific extent.
But the aftermath of World War II and the establishment of Israel created another catastrophe for the people of the region, especially the Arab people of Palestine: the Nakba. Today, each side sticks to its own catastrophe as the determining factor for its national identity. There is no mutual recognition of the catastrophes that inflicted heavy wounds on both sides. Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg write in their introduction to The Holocaust and the Nakba: “Both events which differ in nature and in degree, have had a decisive impact on the subsequent history, consciousness, and identifies of the two people...... Neither the Holocaust nor the Nakba represents the totality of Jewish or Palestinian identity in the early twenty first century; however, both are central, perhaps even crucial components in the collective identity and consequences of each of the two peoples.”
Both the denial of the horrific catastrophe of the Holocaust on the one side and the denial of the expulsion and de facto occupation of Arab land by Jewish settlers on the other side are detrimental to any understanding of the other side and an ultimate peace. This does not mean that one has to consider the events as equal and equally severe: Jews and Palestinians have to honor “the uniqueness of each event, its circumstances and consequences, as well as the differences.” It is obvious that the foundation of Israel a few years after the end of World War II can be connected to this very war and the Holocaust organized by Nazi Germany. As a result of this, the Nakba is also connected to World War II.
But the continuing occupation and annexation confirmed by President Trump and the new Israeli government can also be interpreted as remnants of Western colonialism. The support or often tacit acceptance of that policy aggravates the conflict between the West and the Arabs, especially the Palestinians. The colonial side of the Israeli domination of the Palestinians was taken up especially by the Palestinian author and critic Edward Said. But he also confirmed and underlined the connection of the Palestinian question to the Holocaust:
The Palestinians “have the extraordinary bad luck to have a good case in resisting colonial invasion of their homeland combined with, in terms of the -international and moral scene, the most morally complex of all opponents, Jews, with a long history of victimization and terror behind them. The absolut wrong of settler-colonialism is very much diluted and perhaps even dissipated when it is a fervently believed-in Jewish survival that uses settler-colonialism to straighten out its own destiny.”
Putting Israel’s policy into the framework of colonialism is also the main line of arguments of Achile Mbembe from Cameroon. He is a fierce critique of Israel's occupation and separation policy and is often accused of being antisemitic. He himself accuses Israel of practicing a “fanatical policy of destruction aimed at transforming the life of Palestinians into a heap of ruins or a pile of garbage destined for cleansing.” He compares Israel’s policy with the former apartheid system of South Africa. There, however, the “ruins did never reach such a scale.” On the other hand, the Israeli project “rests on quite a unique metaphysical and existential basis.” He recognizes apocalyptic and catastrophic elements that underwrite and determine Israel’s policies. Even the strongest criticism of Israel’s policies cannot deny the special historical background and especially the genocide during World War II.
In addition, the permanent characterizing of Israel and - often thereby all Jews - as the principal enemy in Arab media also perpetuates the conflict. The recent Arab TV series during Ramadan once again showed many dialogues and scenes supporting prejudice against Jews, including scenes of the destruction of Israel. But we can find also some examples of questioning the taboos of normalization and cooperation between Jews and Arabs in the region. This questioning has, nevertheless, been attacked by many Arab hardliners. These discussions about if and how to establish “normal” relations with Israel show how weak and disunited the Arab states are in their attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
75 years after the end of World War II and the foundation for a UN decision to create two states in Palestine, we are far from realizing Arab Palestine as an independent state. And we are far away from mutual recognition of the catastrophes during and after World War II that form a significant part of the identity of both sides. On the contrary, the annexation plans of the new Israeli government is yet another step away from justice and peace. Colonialism is strongly present - and this may be the only region of the world where it is even progressing. Strangely enough, Israeli colonialism is not only covered up and accepted by the US and many European countries but also by many African countries that were themselves victims of British or French colonialism.
The region needs a peace to end all wars
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the mother of all the conflicts in the region. There are many other conflicts - entirely independent form this specific conflict - even if it is used or misused to win public support. And outside intervention continues to aggravate the fragility of the whole region. In part these interventions are demanded by the countries themselves.
Israel asks the US - and in particular President Trump - for support for its expansion policies to the detriment of the Palestinians. Syria asks Russia for support against domestic uprisings to the detriment of Islamist terrorist and democratic forces alike. Iraq asks for support by the US and Iran at the same time - not without conflicts between the two sides and to the detriment of autonomous, democratic development of this war-torn country. And the countries of the region, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, are looking for support by their neighbors or are intervening in their neighboring countries and organizing proxy wars.
As long as neither outside forces nor the countries of the region themselves have learned the lessons of turmoil brought on by occupation, annexation, and foreign domination, the region will remain weak and without peace. We still need a “Peace to end all Wars” in the Middle East. 75 Years after World War II, it is high time to make progress towards such a peace. And Europe, which in different ways is responsible for many of the ills, failures, and wounds that the Middle East has suffered from, should shoulder its responsibility to promote such a peace.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.