ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.

PEACE PROJECTS. 1947-2003

- SUMMARY
Key words: Israel, Palestine, Middle East, Peace Process, Conflict,
Resolution, Peace Treaties, Peace Initiatives, Peace Projects, Peace Building,
Peacekeeping

The Middle East was and remains one of the tensest regions in the world after the Second
World War. The roots of conflict and instability in the Middle East are deeply embedded in history,
reaching even the Bible times.
We believe that the study of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace Projects. 1947-2003 is
necessary in Romanian historiography because it brings into question some aspects less known or
even unknown history of the Middle East conflict and the involvement of Great Powers - and
Romania

in

the

peace

process

between

Hebrew

and

Arabic

people.

In this respect, the work is developed on several levels of utility and scientific value, namely:
- One, purely theoretically, the right of peoples to live in peace and tranquility in the land
where they have made up as nations and national states;
-

Another, historically, referring to the events in Palestine from the dawn of history until
today.

And last but not least, one in the legal nature of treaties and international agreements,
designed to contribute to the establishing a favorable climate for good coexistence
between all peoples of the Middle East.

To do this doctoral thesis we have sought to explore the specific literature (see the
bibliography) which analyzes:
- International relations;
- World politics and diplomacy;
-Jewish history and the history of the Arabs;
-Arab-Israeli wars;
-Treaties and agreements on Middle East peace.

In addition to works of synthesis and specific ones which have been developed by so
many foreign and Romanian historians - we analyzed and researched the volumes representing
contemporary documents and / or files of documents in archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Bucharest (fond Israel, fond London, etc), and documents in the Central Historical Archives (the
CC of PCR fond, International Relations Department). Also of great interest to us was the research
based on electronic sources, publications and online versions of history magazines.
This thesis is divided into four chapters: I - Palestine. Historical Connections; II Territorial Disputes between Arabs and Jewish people; III - Projects, Agreements and Treaties of
Peace, IV - Romanian Diplomacy and the Middle East Peace Process. (The thesis also includes:
Introduction, Conclusion, References and Appendices).
The first chapter Palestine. Historical connections analyzes - based on general works the
"road" of Palestine in the history and various conflicts that have occurred over time. The main
events we spoke on are:
-

In Jewish history - the people which "became the prototype for many grandiose
projects for humanity, both designed by God and man";

Disputes and controversies of the main actors on the international scene in the
Palestinian territories;

Administration of Palestine during the British Mandate, when Britain took a series of
conflicting decisions and imposed some measures that have displeased both peoples Jew and Palestinian - creating a tense situation that will reach the maximum in the
second half of the twentieth century.

The second chapter Territorial Disputes between Arabs and Hebrew speaks about the
formation of the State of Israel; the Palestinian Organizations and their struggle to achieve a
national state; as well as Arab-Israeli conflict stages of the second half of the twentieth century.
Throughout the British Mandate period, Jews have sought and succeeded to acquire much of the
land owned by Arabs. This led gradually to the damage of relations between the two peoples and
this also made it aware that Jews want to establish a sovereign state in the Palestinian Territories.
It should be noted that throughout the period until the establishment of Jewish state, the entire
Jewish community in Palestine (Yishuv) would focus on the following objectives:
-

Immigration and the integration of new arrivals in Palestinian structures;

Political emancipation of Jews under Ottoman rule;

Economic difficulties and how the Zionist organizations will try in the world, to
impose their wishes and guidelines leading to their major objective: the establishment
of the national state.

Instead, Palestinians objectives were:

-

A burning desire for national independence;

Dislike of establishing a "national home Jew";

Opposition to immigration of Jewish people;

Arabs distrust in the British government promises;

End the massive purchase of land made by Jews.

The second chapter Territorial Disputes between Arabs and Hebrew presents the formation
of Israel state, Palestinian Organizations and their struggle to achieve national state, as well as
Arab-Israeli

conflict

stages

of

the

second

half

of

the

twentieth

century.

During the Second World War, many Jewish communities in Palestine were enrolled in the British
army, which made them to be better armed, organized and, above all, ready to fight for "Eretz
Israel" on the land known as "home of the Jewish people." The birth of Israel state (1948) was
regarded by Palestinians as a temporary failure. Thereafter, a series of Palestinian parties (such as
Al-Jihad Al Muqadas sacred struggle, Abtal Al-hear heroes return, etc.) which had no links
between them, leading separate battle formations, begins to move towards integration and unity in
the fight for the same goal - the establishment of an Palestinian state - and in their support for the
United Nations. Also, in terms of strengthening cohesion and unity of Arab countries, where the
Palestinian question occupies a special role and the emergence of centers of Palestinian resistance,
the first meeting of the Arab Summit held in Alexandria (Egypt) in 1964, put basis of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO). The establishment and organization of the Palestinian resistance
has developed parallel with the acquisition of conscience need for Palestinians to take
responsibility of their cause. Arab-Israeli wars followed, which were four as number (1948/1949,
1956, 1967, 1973). Official War began immediately after Israel was founded, but the fight was
actually just a continuation of those of 1947, when the UN Resolution 181 was issued, which
provided for dividing Palestine into two separate states the resolution was rejected by Arab
leaders.
All these wars will create a series of problems both in the region and internationally,
namely:

Palestinian refugee problem. Only during World War I, according to UN figures, about
650,000 Arab people of Palestine fled to other areas;

The border issue. After the first war with Arab states, Israel has managed to occupy
75% of historical Palestine and gradually to increase the territorial area of 20,800 km2
to 89,859 km2 (after the "Six Day War" of 1967);

Issue of Jerusalem and Holy Places. After 1948, Jerusalem was divided between West
Bank (East Jerusalem) and Israel (West Jerusalem), but after 1967, the entire city was
conquered by Israel, which gave a new dimension to the conflict;

The Problem of establishing a Palestinian national state. Palestinians have always

claimed - both domestically and internationally - a state of their own in all the territories
they had held until 1967;

Also, these wars have led to changing the power relations in the Middle East. It was
obvious that Israel had a military force stronger than any coalition of Arab states, and
this relationship has changed each ones position and relation with the rest of the world.

The third chapter, Projects, Agreements and Peace Treaties, analyzes bayed on the
international agreements the way it had been tried to be solved the multiple questions this area
needed to be solved. They sought, in particular: the main projects, agreements and treaties on peace
process - Palestinian refugee problem - the status of Jerusalem - settlement and recognition of two
states, Israel and Palestine.
As for the beginning of the Middle East peace process, the thesis deals with the
involvement of international community to solve all this objectives which are - and remains - a
permanent point in the agenda of Middle East states, Great Powers and International
Organizations.
International community involvement in managing the situation in the Middle East was not
coherent, congruent and consistent. It is obvious that the U.S. role played from the start in
managing the conflict and peace process, assuming most of the times mediate or initiators of
negotiations, a role that was very helpful more dynamic and international situation during the Cold
War, and its development after 1990 and after 2001.
Regarding Europe, after leaving the British mandate in Palestine, the first major and visible
involvement of the European Community was in 1973, following the Yom Kippur War and World
oil crisis, the EC issued a statement recognizing the "legitimate Palestinian rights" and the

withdrawal of Israel's borders before the 1967 war. Then, after 1991, since the Madrid Conference
of 1993, and signed the Oslo Agreement - agreement in which Israel and the Palestinian Liberation
Organization recognized each other - we can say that it marks the beginning of the Middle East
peace process. Also, after Oslo in 1993, EU involvement in the peace process has become more
visible, even if the lead continued to be played by the United States (EU channeling their attention
to the financial support of the Palestinian Authority). In 1999, following the Berlin Declaration,
European Union supported the creation of a Palestinian state, sovereign, democratic, viable. In
2000, the High Commissioner Havier Solana would be part of the Mitchell Commission and the
EU in 2001 shows their support for open discussions on Taba. After the inclusion in Quartet who
initiated the Road Map, the EU's attitude to Palestine was about to be tested in 2006 with the
coming to the Palestinian Authority leadership of Hamas. It is noted that after so many years from 1948 until now - the Great Powers and the UN have not yet articulated a common view over
how it should look a final agreement on borders of two states (Israel and Palestine), Jerusalem and
Palestinian refugees. Over time - starting with the partition plan issued by the UN (1947),
Resolution 242, UN Security Council (1967); agreements at Camp David (1978), the signing of
the Oslo (1993) Camp David summit between Barak and Arafat (2000), ratification document
"Road Map" (2003) etc. - these big problems of the Middle East were discussed, analyzed, more
or less put in practice, but never completed as to bring tranquility and peace between the two
peoples. However, there is hope that sooner or later will find solutions to the Middle East peace
because - as mentioned by George Mitchell, Obama's envoy to the area - "conflicts created by
people can only be resolved by the people". More broadly, the success of the peace process requires
a number of conditions that are far from meeting: Israel's abandonment of its religious
fundamentalism, unconditional recognition of Israel, promising growth dynamics for Palestinians,
a better fate and recognition of Palestine State.
These initiatives, taken by the UN, they were hard to put into practice because of opposition
from the Middle East states and the interests - political, economic and geopolitical - of the Great
Powers. Policy of the two superpowers - the U.S. and U.R.S.S. - exercising their dominance over
spheres of influence, in fact areas of social and political systems like those two poles, was a
determined factor in the stability of areas of potential conflict. Thus, in the Middle East foreign
policy of the two superpowers was to deny access to any potentially hostile power and attraction
of the region's states in their area of interest. After the Yom Kippur War (1973), U.R.S.S. wanted

to avoid a disaster for its Arab allies and the United States, in turn, wanted to maintain a balance
in the Middle East. Under pressure from the two superpowers, the Security Council passed several
resolutions (no. 338 and no. 339) which require to cease fire between the combatants and to
implement UN Resolution 242 of November 1967 and then to negotiate a just and lasting peace.
U.S. involvement the Middle East was on all levels: politically, militarily, and economically. It is
noted that after the visit of Prime Minister Golda Meir in the OR (From September 26 to October
7, 1969) Israel's ties with the United States widened and concluded that "Israel is ready for direct
negotiations without preconditions, is ready to discuss all issues in dispute, that there is no
intentions of territorial expansion. On February 18, 1970, President Nixon announced the U.S.
Congress following: "America can not and will design all plans, initiate all programs, execute all
decisions and take full defense of free world nations. The only point that lies before us is how we
can better and more efficiently to meet our responsibilities, protecting our interests, and thus
establishing peace "(From" President Nixon Doctrine "). The peace process was lengthy, complex
and difficult and involved both the Middle East and UN, U.S. and U.R.S.S.
Later on, by involvement of the Secretary of State Kissinger, some disengagement
agreements followed (Sinai I and Sinai II in 1974 and 1975) and those agreements spoke about the
retire of the troops, reopening the Suez Canal and sending UN troops for peacekeeping. But the
first major peace agreement was signed in 1979, at Camp David between Egypt and Israel.
Negotiations at Camp David were a true milestone in the recent history of the Middle East. Before
the agreement, the Arab-Israeli history was dominated by hatred and war, by this agreement, hope
for a solid and lasting peace become on some levels, possible. But still, political and geostrategic
games in the region have been having ups and downs, since alliances broke down according to
major geopolitical interests. Peace agreements and the few compromises made by one side or the
other have not contributed with anything to improve the situation of Palestinians in the occupied
territories. In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles and
The Oslo acts gave rise to the Palestinian National Authority, the entity which had rights for
negotiating and also who gain international representation.
Dynamic events in the Middle East make the analysis of the situation in the area to be in
perpetual change and the continuing need for revision. Target the most important international
arena is now finding ways and means of implementation of peace in this area. We believe that to
fulfill these objectives, should know very well the history and development plans, platforms and

initiatives for peace on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the context of local and international
situation and the periods when they were made.
One of the solutions of the past and lately tend to be updated is the Single State solution or
as is known, a binational state. What would involve such a solution? Can it generate a new era of
peace in this area? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such solutions and how is it
feasible? These are some of the questions we try to find a response in this study.
Binational state - was an idea launched by Dr. Yehuda Magnes, President of Hebrew University
and the Hebrew philosopher Martin Buber. State ought to have both Hebrew and Arab cantons,
like Switzerland. This proposal was presented to Anglo-American Committee in 1946, and was
supported by the USSR
With the birth of Israel in May 1948, the binational solution became largely the main idea
in the discussion of time when much of the native Arab population was displaced due to conflict.
Some aspects of this idea - such as equal political rights for the rest of the Arabs - have been
granted, in principle, but this decision was limited, Israeli leadership stating that the country should
have

Hebrew

majority

in

terms

of

political

leadership.

In the Arab side, the idea of a binational state solution was generally rejected by the Arab national
movement, which saw it as gain almost non-existent, Arab leaders opposed the idea of becoming
a minority in what they perceive as automatically is their own country. From their point of view,
the massive influx of Hebrew in Europe and the Middle East was a gigantic project of colonization,
like the medieval Crusades period. PLO. kept the initial choice of a single binational secular state,
but started to leave to understand and was willing to accept a separate Palestinian state in the West
Bank and Gaza. Israeli settlements should be dismantled and Palestinian refugees be allowed to
return - both in Israel and in Palestine. This new position, formally adopted in December 1988,
was vehemently rejected by Israeli public opinion and major political parties, but was later used
as

basis

for

peace

negotiations

in

the

90s.

From 2003-2004, this solution seems to be increasingly more attention. A number of researchers
are concerned with the analysis of all aspects of such a project possibility of being achieved. In
2004, the conference organized by the Passia, The Idea of Binational State in Israel Palestine.
Conceptual Framework and Contemporary Debates regarding binational state idea, as a solution
to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians have sketched four ways forward: the first provides
an elite formation of ethnic groups, the existence of two mutual veto so that none of the groups to

be able to impose its opinion on the other, a fair representation at all levels of government with
power shared equally between groups being said even the very idea that in some ministries there
should be two ministers to deal the problems of their own ethnic group, and not least the internal
autonomy

which

each

ethnic

group

to

manage

their

own

problems.

But even if, in matters of organization, the structure of such a state can theoretically be solved,
with legislation and international examples, the barrier in the way of such a solution consists of
more insignificant issues at a glance but impossible to pass in practice. One of these would be in
the case of such a state - the name issue. If the state would bear the name of Israel, is hard to
believe that the Palestinians, after decades of struggle, would accept to be citizens - even though
talk of a binational state of a country that has the name of Israel. The problem remains the same
in the other camp. No Israeli citizen - Jew would accept that what they obtained in 1948 after the
creation and recognition of their own state - Israel - to lose, even on a psychological level.
Another probable way for finding solutions to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is
the creation of two distinct states. Two state solution is found in all documents produced from
1947 - the Partition Plan of UN resolution - and going up in 2002 - the proposals of the Road Map
developed

by

the

Quartet

(U.S.

Russia

EU

UN).

Partition Plan, contained in resolution 181 UN Security Council, envisaged the creation of two
states, one Arab and the other Hebrew, with Jerusalem as a separate entity (corpus separatum).
The Quartet Roadmap thought would mark an important step in the peace process between Israel
and Palestine and to make so that 2003 becomes a year of hope that something can indeed be done.
However, although the two state solution has enjoyed and still enjoys a large number of followers,
making various attempts over the years to entrench such an idea, situation on the ground is often
quite different than that outlined in the highest levels.
However, after 1991, since the Madrid Conference of 1993, signed the Oslo Agreement agreement that Israel and the PLO to recognize each other - we appreciate that marks the beginning
of the Middle East peace process. Moreover, in 1999, following the Berlin Declaration, European
Union called for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. Gradually, politicians and
people of Israel understood that developing and strengthening their state can not take place until a
stable region, the real and permanent peace. The inhabitants of this ancient and holy land: Hebrew
and Arabic, together with the international community have a duty to build a viable future,

prosperity for both peoples, the wisdom and patience beyond historical legacy, concepts, attitudes
and contradictions, marked repeatedly with blood and human suffering prolonged.
Chapter IV highlights the involvement of Romanian diplomacy - the constructive
achievements - in all major crises in the Middle East in the second half of the twentieth century.
Romania's interest to solve problems in the Middle East found its justification:
-

Our country's geopolitical significance, located between Europe, the Soviet Union, the
Balkans and the Middle East;

Active participation in all international bodies;

Desire of President Nicolae Ceausescu for Romania to have "a foreign policy of
defending the peace, the reduction of international tension and develop cooperation
between peoples";

Romanian-Israeli relations and diplomacy have been an exception of the Cold War
blocks. During the "Six-Day War" (1967), Romania was the only country in the
socialist bloc which did not break relations with Israel;

Old consular ties: in 1921, I.G. Duca, Foreign Minister, established the first Romanian
consulate in Jerusalem (being named consul Michael A. Gersassimo), and in 1933
established the Consulate General category Ia (led by Mark Beza) which was made in
1936 an honorary Consulate of Romania in Tel Aviv , in 1948 Romania recognizes
Israel, and on August 19, 1969 Romanian representative office in Tel Aviv is raised to
the rank of embassy;

Diplomatic ties with Arab states: with Egypt in 1906, Syria in 1955, Sudan in 1956,
Yemen in 1957 and Iraq in 1958, this dialogue and diplomatic Romanian-Arab Summit
continued after 1964, when Romania has promoted , among other principles, the one
of "solidarity and support assertive liberation movement of peoples";

The wave of emigration of Jews from Romania to Israel. In the '70s it was thought that
about 400 000 Hebrew from Romania, which made Ceausescu to exclaim: "I think, if I
run for elections there, I would win the majority";

Romania's desire to solve the "Palestinian problem" that they really considered crucial
for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Thus, after the Yom Kippur War (1973) between
the envoys of the two sides - Arab and Israeli - have held a series of negotiations (until
1977) on the Romanian territory.

Maintaining and enhancing an open dialogue both with Israel and with Arab states,
Romania managed to contribute to the achievement of important steps in the process of detente
and peace, in a neighboring region - the Middle East - to which it is bound by ancient spiritual
traditions

also

showing

interest

and

respect

for

all

peoples

in

the

area.

*
**
Finally we find that until the late '80s, the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict seemed
impossible to solve - two peoples - Jews and Palestinians - squaring the same ground and refusing
to recognize each other. After 1990, with the end of the Cold War, the disappearance of East-West
antagonism (Middle East ceased to be one of the areas under the "protection" of Americans and
Soviets), with starting of Intifada (uprising of Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel),
with intervention of various international bodies -, leading to unblock negotiations and problem
solving impossible "mutual recognition on September 13, 1993, in Washington between Israel and
the Palestine Liberation Organization. Since then, the peace process between the two peoples will
see "a timetable for negotiations", which meant that the number would be less divergence than
convergence.
Now, at the end of my doctoral stage, I want to thank especially to univ. Prof. Dr. Ion
Calafeteanu, my coordinator and scientific advisor of the thesis, for all the support and advice to
he offered during the realization of this research theme so complex and with so many international
implications.

PhD. Stud. Osiac Daniela Viorica

University Valahia of Targoviste 2012