Debunking the Myth of Israel's Illegal Occupation of the Land. Arab-Israeli conflict

Few countries on the planet are more irreconcilable to each other than Palestine and Israel. The history of the conflict has deep roots and continues to this day. The war between Arabs and Jews can be called chronic. There is no end in sight to this confrontation...

Background of the conflict

Around the middle of the second millennium BC, the territory in question was conquered and settled by Jewish tribes. In the ancient chronicles, one can find such names as Canaan, Celesiria and Palestine. The first mention of the Lands of Israel dates back to 1030 BC.

In the 6th century BC, the Babylonians expelled the Jews, but after about 60 years, the natives returned and restored their dominance. In the 4th century AD, the territory of modern Israel and Palestine became part of the Roman Empire, and after 3 centuries the Arabs came here. The Jews were expelled. Their lands became part of the Ottoman Empire and remained in it until the end of the First World War.

The Arab state was among the losers, and Great Britain, which received a mandate to oversee affairs in the Middle East, launched the process of returning Jews to their historical homeland. The basis for this was the Balfour Declaration, which justified the claims of the Zionists in the territory of Palestine, inhabited by Arabs. This document, published in 1917, can be considered the starting point of the modern conflict.

First half of the 20th century

The end of the second decade of the 20th century was marked by the mass migration of Jews from Europe to the banks of the Jordan. For the most part, they were peaceful people. The ideological Zionists "troubled" the water. They called on the Jews to expel the Arabs from Palestine, but so far they have not moved on to radical actions. Although the Haganah military association has already been created.

In 1932, more than 200 thousand Jews lived in Palestine, by 1938 this figure doubled, and after the end of World War II it reached 620 thousand. There were already all the prerequisites for the creation of an appropriate state, and this process was supported by the winning countries.

The Jews expressed their desire to occupy the entire territory of Palestine, completely driving out the Arabs. But the UN General Assembly in November 1947 decided to create two independent states: Israel (14 thousand square meters) and Palestine (11 thousand square kilometers). Jews were supposed to live in the first, and Arabs in the second. Between the countries assumed a neutral (international zone) - Jerusalem.

This decision was approved by world leaders - the USSR and the USA, and the main defendants in the process - Jews and Arabs - were not against it. In 1948, a new state appeared on the map - Israel. It seemed that the conflict had come to its happy end.

Second half of the 20th century and today

But hopes for the best did not come true, and the phrase "Israel against Palestine" continued to be on everyone's lips. The history of the conflict is not over. Radical Zionists did not want to recognize the independence of the Arab state in the territory of Palestine, claiming this part. They conducted militant rhetoric and organized terrorist acts. For its part, the Arab world (Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) did not recognize the independence of Israel and declared "jihad" to it.

The number of Jews increased every year, and they managed to create an army of 30,000. But the Arabs had 40,000 soldiers. The king of Jordan led the army of Muslims, and at first she was lucky. But in 1948, the Jews went on the offensive and occupied almost the entire territory of Palestine, forcing about a million Arabs to emigrate.

The UN has repeatedly called on both sides for peace, but the conflict continues to this day. He then subsides, then flares up stronger. At the moment, there is a state of Israel with a population of more than 8 million people and a territory of 22,000 square kilometers.

Palestine, although it was proclaimed a state back in 1988, has not yet received recognition from many countries. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about its sovereignty. It occupies the territory of the West Bank of the Jordan River, as well as the Gaza Strip, which Israel continues to encroach on. More than 4.5 million Arabs are waiting for the moment when their homeland will become a full-fledged state, and the war will finally stop. But even the estimated date for the end of the conflict is not yet called by anyone.

The Arab-Israeli conflict for many decades has been one of the most explosive among the Middle East "hot spots", the escalation of events around which can at any moment lead to a new regional war, as well as significantly affect the system of international relations as a whole.

The conflict between Arabs and Jews over Palestine began even before the establishment of the State of Israel. The roots of the conflict go back to the period of the British Mandate and even earlier, when the position of Jews in the Ottoman Empire and Palestine was determined by Islamic religious law, according to which the status and rights of religious minorities were lower than Muslim ones. The Jews were then subjected to all kinds of discrimination from the local authorities, concentrated in the hands of representatives of the Arab nobility and from the local Muslim population. This situation could not but leave a trace in the relations between the two peoples.

In addition, the roots should be sought in the clash of the psychologies of the two peoples: the Arab population, which was committed to the old religious traditions and way of life, believed in the spiritual authority of the authorities and representatives of the Zionist movement, who brought with them from Europe a completely new way of life.

Since 1917, after the proclamation of the Balfour Declaration in Palestine, relations between Jews and Arabs began to heat up and develop into a political conflict, aggravated every year. The conflict was fueled by the influence of Great Britain, and later - Germany and Italy - on the Arab population.

Since 1947, the war was already in full swing on the territory of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish national state. In May 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed on the basis of Resolution No. 181 of the UN General Assembly, adopted in November 1947. Arab countries reacted extremely negatively to what was happening by not recognizing Israel, which led to an escalation of the conflict between Israel and neighboring Arab countries. During the Arab-Israeli war (1947-49), Israel managed to defend its independence and take over Western Jerusalem and part of the territory assigned to Palestine under a UN mandate. Iran did not participate in this war, which is connected with overcoming the severe consequences of the Second World War.

At the time of the next Arab-Israeli clash (Six-Day War, 1967), Israel went deep into the Sinai Peninsula, captured the Golan Heights, the West Bank of the river. Jordan, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

However, during the 1970s, Iran continued to cooperate with Israel in terms of trade, as well as in the field of defense and security.

During the Yom Kippur War (1973), Iran provided little and implicit support to Israel in the form of fighter jets and other military equipment. The war ended in Israel's victory, and the defeated Arab OPEC members imposed an oil embargo on countries that support Israel and grossly inflated the price of a barrel of oil, which led to a state of "oil shock" in the world.

After 1979, Iranian-Israeli relations deteriorated sharply. The key idea raised in Iran at that time was the spread and expansion of the Islamic revolution beyond the borders of the state. Israel's control of Jerusalem, home to the al-Aqsa Mosque (Islam's third sanctuary), has become a stumbling block.

In 1981, Iran rejected the plan to create Palestine on the West Bank of the river. Jordan. Iran began to declare that Palestine should be created within the former borders and the presence of Israel there undermines the interests of the entire Islamic world. The subsequent presidents of Iran propagated a negative attitude towards Israel, and built their political course in an anti-Israeli spirit. On this basis, Iran acquired allies in the face of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Turkey and other Arab countries.

In September 1980, the Iran-Iraq war began over the border territory, which took over all the attention of Iran. Both warring parties received colossal financial and military assistance from outside, as well as individual structures. In 1988, the war ended in a draw.

In 1995, Iran was subjected to sanctions by the United States, which were expressed by a ban on the supply of weapons, to which Russia joined. Only by 2001 did Russia restore deliveries.

In 1997, Khatami became President of Iran, who was later replaced by Ahmadinejad. Khatami tried to bring Iran out of isolation and establish contacts with the West. However, he had to face religious leaders who were forming anti-Israeli public opinion.

Against this background, in the early 2000s, the United States willingly supported Israel and drew the attention of the IAEA to Iran's actions. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 1968 nuclear weapons and ratified it in 1970. Now the IAEA called on Iran to accept an Additional Protocol to the NPT, allowing for unauthorized inspections of any objects on Iranian territory for their compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In December 2003, Iran signs it in Vienna at the IAEA Headquarters. Since that moment, the world community has been drawn into the discussion of the Iranian nuclear program. This document gives the IAEA the opportunity to agree to the implementation of Iran's nuclear programs. Iran has demonstrated the full openness of its actions in relation to international obligations.

The Iranian parliament has not yet ratified the protocol, so Iran does not consider itself obliged to report to the IAEA inspectors.

While Khatami was in power, he made possible attempts to have the IAEA stop discriminating against Iran and recognize its right to conduct nuclear research under the NPT, while indicating that, in accordance with this treaty, Iran has the right to carry out a full nuclear cycle, including uranium enrichment . However, over time it became clear that the more stubbornly Iran proved its case, the more irreconcilable became the position of the West, which was fully shared by Israel. Therefore, since 2005, Iran sharply toughened its position and again drew the attention of the world community to Israel as the owner of a real nuclear weapon.

In August 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in Iran. In June 2006, Ahmadinejad proposed holding not only in Iran but also in Europe a referendum on the topic "What feelings do citizens have towards Israel?" Ahmadinejad denies that Iran has a nuclear bomb and believes that Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons. He constantly focuses on the presence of nuclear weapons in other countries, especially Israel, and sees no reason to worry, because the era of nuclear weapons has passed.

Today, Iran keeps the whole world in suspense. An open information war is being waged between Iran and Israel, the United States. New sanctions come into force, regular reports from the IAEA come to the UN, but this only leads to increased isolation of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad is developing with renewed vigor nuclear capability. Every year, the IAEA collects new evidence in favor of Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Iran does not cease to assert that the program is peaceful. The Iranian nuclear program is being discussed everywhere. In early 2012, Israel began discussions with the US about invading Iran and bombing nuclear facilities. To this end, negotiations are held regularly. Israel argues its position by saying that it fears for its further fate, so he is forced to act radically.

The Arab-Israeli conflict currently includes four parallel processes: the process of restoring peace between the Arabs and Israel; the process of the gradual destruction of the country of Israel; the process of intensification of the Arab-Israeli conflict; the process of global opposition of Muslim civilization to the rest of humanity.

The presence of Iran's nuclear program haunts neither Israel nor the entire world community.

December 19, 2012 Israel launches an air strike on several sites in Iran that are believed to be infrastructure for Iran's nuclear program. Within 30 minutes of the Israeli attack air Force Iran is making a somewhat unsuccessful air raid on a number of Israeli cities - Tel Aviv, Haifa, Dimona, Beer Sheva. Several bombs also fall within the city of Jerusalem.

An armed conflict could potentially escalate into a regional or even a world war, in which the United States, Arab countries, Russia, China, Great Britain and France and other states of the world will be drawn.

If the conflict continues, enormous damage is expected due to the bombing of nuclear facilities and military operations on the territory of Iran, in particular, where the civilian population will be at risk first of all. This also applies to other countries in the Middle East region, which will subsequently be involved in the conflict. It is very important now not to let the conflict grow to a regional scale, and even more so - a global one.

The UN Security Council is obliged to intervene and create mechanisms to counter the deterioration of the situation in the region, as well as contribute to the speedy cessation of the armed conflict and the beginning of a peaceful settlement between the parties.

On December 19, 2012 at 6:00 am, Israel began to deliver precision strikes on some Iranian targets, namely on the Iranian nuclear facility Parchin, which is located 30 km southeast of Tehran. It was no coincidence that Parchin was chosen as a target. It was at this military base that IAEA inspectors and Israeli intelligence discovered the development of nuclear weapons. Iran has started enriching uranium up to 20%, which is absolutely unacceptable. This situation undermines the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. enriched uranium within 5% is enough to support the operation of nuclear power plants.

In the spring and summer of 2012, satellite images of the Parchin military base were uploaded to the judgment of the world community on the website of the Institute of Science and International Security (ISIS). Iran once again did not allow IAEA inspectors to check on the Parchin base. Based on this, Israel decided to launch preventive strikes on a nuclear facility. The United States, in turn, supported him.

Iran immediately reacts to Israeli actions. Within 30 minutes after the Israeli attack, the Iranian air force makes a return unsuccessful air raid on a number of Israeli cities - Tel Aviv, Haifa, Dimona, Beer Sheva. Several bombs also fall within the city of Jerusalem.

The mobilization of American air and ground forces began. The United States is pulling its ground forces from Afghanistan and the Arabian Peninsula to the borders of Iran and the naval forces from the Persian Gulf Now the world community is facing the question: Should regional leaders decide to intervene in hostilities, or everything will end with the bombing of nuclear facilities, as was the case in Syria and Iraq? How will the UN Security Council react?

A more dramatic situation is emerging around Iran. Iran without the support of the Arab countries will not be able to resist the US and Israel. How the conflict will end is unknown. Iran is unlikely to want to give up its nuclear ambitions, as did Iraq and Syria.

The Arab-Israeli conflict today is one of the most acute international problems, and the problems of migration (Muslims to Europe and Central Asians to Russia) are modern world are also acute.

Sotskova V.P.

Literature

1. Rapoport M.A. The perception of Jewish immigration to Palestine by the Arab public in 1882-1948. - St. Petersburg, 2013. - 71 p.
2. Mesamed V. Israel - Iran - from friendship to enmity. URL: http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1266528060.
3. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. URL: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/npt.shtml.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. URL: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/npt.shtml.

Druzhilovsky S.B. Iranian-Israeli relations in the light of the development of the Iranian nuclear program. URL: http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2006/04-05-06a.htm.

The tragedy in Jerusalem, which happened yesterday, excited the whole world. Unarmed civilians were praying in the synagogue when two Palestinians from East Jerusalem entered the shrine with weapons and carried out a massacre, killing four people. The paramilitary group claimed responsibility for the attack. People's Front for the liberation of Palestine." Once again, two bitter rivals reminded the world of their bloody conflict.

The history of existence political map the peace of Israel is the history of wars. During its short existence, the borders of the country changed several times. The Jewish people were pushed aside by their Arab neighbors for a long time, unable to find a peaceful way out of the current situation.

For more than 20 years, Palestine and Israel have been trying to find a peaceful way to resolve the age-old conflict.

First War: Bloody Independence

The war on the territory of the State of Israel begins the very next day after the declaration of independence. Israel's independence was declared on May 14, 1948, and already on May 15, five Arab countries declare war on the new country and send their troops to its borders.

During the first war, Israel is victorious and greatly expands its territories. Jerusalem was proclaimed the capital, but not the entire city was under the rule of the Jewish people, but only a part.

The war officially ended in 1949. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel have signed a peace treaty. The result of the war between the Arab world and Israel was a large number of Palestinian refugees who left the rebellious region. To date, the UN claims 5 million displaced persons who have turned to other countries for help.

Second War: Reclaiming the Lands

The next round of the Arab-Israeli war took place in 1967. Israel struck first. The fighting continued for 6 days. On the one hand there was Israel, on the other - the union of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Algeria.

Israel's aggression was caused by the actions of its Arab neighbors. A few weeks before the start of the war, the Arab neighbors began to pull to the borders of the state military equipment. The government in Jerusalem decided to attack first.

And in this military campaign, the actual victory was for Israel. The occupied territories exceeded the country's own territories by 3.5 times. Israel regained control of East Jerusalem, which, under the 1949 peace treaty, was ceded to Jordan, and also annexed the Gaza Strip.

The government decides to immediately begin the integration of the occupied territories into Israeli society and the construction of Jewish settlements begins. The world community did not accept the results of the war, the UN Security Council sharply criticized Israel's actions.

Resolution 242 (1967), United Nations Security Council: " On November 22, 1967, after lengthy negotiations, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which set out the principles for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. The resolution argued that the establishment of a just and lasting peace required the application of two principles: the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied during the recent conflict and the cessation of all claims or states of war, and the respect and recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized frontiers, free from the threat or use of force."

Third War: Sneak Attack

Egypt and Syria started the last official war. The Yom Kippur War began on October 6, 1973. It lasted 18 days.

Egypt and Syria attacked Israel unexpectedly, during the celebration of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur. The effect of surprise and unpreparedness for hostilities gave their results. In the first phase of hostilities, the balance was tipped in the direction of the Arab military.

But the second half of the conflict was favorable to Israel, and the Jews once again drove the attackers out of their borders. The war was ended by another UN resolution, the text of which was similar to the previous one.

Madrid talks: ghost country Palestine

The first peace negotiations and the conclusion of a treaty were carried out in 1978 between Israel and Egypt. But the solution of the Palestinian question was not decided until the 1990s. The first official meeting of the Jewish and Arab leadership took place in 1991 in Madrid. At this meeting, several points were highlighted that were supposed to resolve the situation of a full-scale war hanging in the air.

1. Implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 (338 is the second resolution after the Yom Kippur War);

2. Compliance with the principle of "land in exchange for peace";

3. Ensuring the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people;

4. Achieving security and peace for the Israelis;

The Madrid talks did not imply the creation of a separate state by the Palestinian people. This issue was not raised until 2003. The peace plan of the "road map" was a joint development of Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union. According to the text of the developed document, in two years it was necessary to gradually reduce the level of tension of the conflict and create a new state - Palestine.

But this plan has not yet been implemented. The reason for this disagreement is within both the Israeli and Palestinian political elites.

Recent events in Israel have shown that the Middle East is on the verge of another war. This year, the Israeli army has already bombed the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian territories. In response to the aggression of Jerusalem, the Palestinians stage terrorist attacks within the borders of Israel.

Introduction

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for more than half a century. The beginning of this conflict was associated with the creation in 1948 of the State of Israel in Palestine. However, the process associated with the creation of this state began even earlier, at the end of 18 -century and were associated with the so-called political Zionism. This caused a negative reaction from the Arab population of Palestine and neighboring countries, since the British administration promised the Arabs to create an Arab state on the territory of Palestine. Disagreements led to a war in which the State of Israel not only managed to survive, but also captured a significant part of the territory intended for the Arab state. This was followed by several more conflicts between Israel and neighboring Arab states. The greatest influence on subsequent events was the 1967 war, also known as the "Six-Day War", during which Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Sinai and the Golan Heights. In addition to complicating relations with neighboring Arab countries, the Israeli occupation of these territories led to the flight of Palestinians to neighboring countries, exacerbating the problem of Palestinian refugees. Up until 1990 -In the 1990s, Palestinian-Israeli relations practically did not develop, since the Palestinians refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, while Israel perceived the Palestinians as terrorists and refused to discuss the creation of a Palestinian state and the issue of refugees. The turning point came at the end of 1980 -x early 1990 -1990s, with the collapse of the USSR. The United States has become the main center of power in the world and the American administration has taken a number of steps aimed at resolving the Middle East conflict.

The issue of the Arab-Israeli settlement is still one of the most pressing issues in world politics. Recent clashes between the IDF and members of the Hamas movement in 2012 show that the parties need to work out as soon as possible solutions that can lead to a final peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which would allow the parties to provide each other with guarantees of peaceful coexistence. The search for this solution was started by the Israeli side immediately after the end of the Six-Day War, when a number of Mossad officers spoke in favor of separating the territories of the East Bank and the Gaza Strip from the state of Israel, and creating a Palestinian state in these territories. But then the Israeli leadership underestimated the danger posed by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for Israel, and considered that it would be more profitable to leave these territories to ensure Israel's security. Subsequent terrorist attacks by the Palestinian liberation fighters finally spoiled relations between the Palestinians and Israelis, which led to a freeze on work on finding a compromise. At the moment, it is inappropriate to talk about who is to blame for the current situation, since the problem of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement has not yet been resolved and it must be solved based on the current state of Palestinian-Israeli relations.

You should also remember the importance of this region for the world, because in addition to cultural and religious value, we are talking about a region with a population of about 12 million people. Of course, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the only problem in the region of the Middle East, since apart from it there are problems of countering Islamic extremism, Iran's nuclear program or the issue of the Syrian settlement, which includes the issue of the country's chemical weapons stockpiles. However, a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict can significantly defuse the situation in the region, since many regional contradictions are tied to this conflict.

The speedy resolution of this problem is extremely important for Israel, since it is the resolution of the Palestinian problem that will become one of the main guarantors of the security of the state. It is also disturbing that many Palestinian groups are gradually coming under Iranian control. This is evident from recent events, during which Iranian-made missiles were used against Israel, which indicates a rapprochement between the Palestinian radical movements and the Iranian government. For Israel, this problem is especially relevant, since Palestinian groups loyal to Iran can play the role of a “fifth column” in a possible confrontation between Israel and Iran.

The degree of development of the topic: The theoretical and methodological basis of the work was the research of many scientists. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the object of close attention of a number of domestic and foreign researchers. The interest of scientists in this conflict is primarily due to the importance of this topic for regional and global development.

One of the most prominent Russian-speaking researchers of the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflict is A. Epstein is a specialist in the study of history and sociology, one of the largest Russian-speaking experts in the field of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of his monographs are actively used in the work, which help to reveal the Israeli point of view on the settlement process.

Another valuable source of information regarding the internal processes that took place in Israel was the book of I.D. Zvyagelskaya "The State of Israel", which is valuable primarily because the author highlights the internal political picture of Israel, and also describes the consequences of certain decisions for the Israeli government and gives an insight into the history of the State of Israel and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The work of the authors Polyakov K.I. and Khasyanov A.Zh. "Palestinian national autonomy: the experience of state building" is devoted to the period of formation of government in the Palestinian national autonomy.

Speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one cannot fail to mention E.M. Primakov - a man who not only studied the Middle East, but also took a direct part in key events in this region. His book The Middle East: On Stage and Behind the Scenes provides information on the role of Soviet politics. / Russia in the region.

The book of the Palestinian explorer A. Rashed's "Palestinian Problem: Past and Present" tells the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from a Palestinian perspective.

Foreign literature was also involved in the thesis work, since foreign sources help to obtain the most complete information about the role of the United States and Europe in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

W. Quandt's book "Peace process: american diplomacy and the arab-israeli conflict since 1967" is a valuable source of information about the role of the American side in the Arab-Israeli settlement process.

Another source of information about the role of Americans in the settlement of the Middle East conflict is the book by S. Tucker ,"The encyclopedia of the Arab - Israeli conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History" ,in which the author gives information about all aspects of the Arab-Israeli confrontation.

The object of the research is the ethno-political conflict relations of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which appear in the historical development and the current state as a complex and specific phenomenon of regional and world politics.

The subject of the study is the institutional aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict as an essential factor in its historical and current nature, which determines the specifics of the current state and the contradictions of its development.

The purpose of the study is determined by the chosen object and subject of the study and is to identify and comprehensively analyze the Arab-Israeli conflict, its regulating factors in the modern world.

Achieving the main goal of the study involves solving a number of specific tasks:

analyze the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, share the main conflict factors and problems of Arab-Israeli relations;

identify the main structural elements of the Arab-Israeli conflict in their hierarchical unity;

identify the main stages of the historical process of the Arab-Israeli conflict;

determine the potential and conditions for the implementation of the regulatory functions of the Arab-Israeli conflict

The basis for the study are:

1.Materials from the official websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Information Center and the archive site www.palestineinarabic.com, which posted official documents covering the course of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority.

.Transcripts of speeches of the parties in the negotiations, which help to understand the positions of the parties in the negotiations.

.Autobiographical materials written by the participants of these negotiations, and persons who had a great influence on the course of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which provide information on the participation of these figures in the negotiation process and give their assessment of the progress of the peace process between Israel and Palestine.

.Articles from domestic and foreign newspapers covering the development of the Middle East settlement process.

.Collections of UN documents, as well as documents from the official websites of the UN archives, which contain decisions regarding the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli settlement. These documents give an idea of ​​the role of the UN in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process.

1. Historical roots of the emergence and development of the Arab-Israeli conflict

.1 Chronology of events and the political aspect of the formation of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority

conflict arabic israeli historical

Palestine is a territory located in the Middle East off the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, which has a centuries-old complex history.

Since ancient times, the lands of the Eastern Mediterranean, connecting Eurasia with Africa, have been the most important center of human habitation due to the favorable climate and advantageous geostrategic position. It was this part of Asia that, after the emergence of the most ancient centers of civilization, became the center of transit links between them and played a huge role in the mutual influence of cultures - ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, ancient Greek, not to mention the Hittites, Assyrians and other representatives of secondary civilizations and states of the Middle East region. The Mediterranean lands were an arena of transit trade routes, which contributed to their accelerated development, the formation of large state complexes on their basis. Cities showed a tendency to strengthen and expand due to the periphery adjacent to them, the conquest and annexation of neighboring lands.

At the end of the II millennium BC. the Philistines came to the southwestern part of Canaan, moving from Asia Minor. The place of their settlement, the most fertile lands of the Mediterranean, was called Peleshet, and later the whole land of Canaan was called Palestine. Almost simultaneously with the Philistines, in 1800 BC, the ancient Jews appeared on the territory of Palestine, who were Western Semitic pastoral tribes ousted from Mesopotamia. On the eve of the resettlement of Jews in Palestine, it was a conglomeration of small cities and proto-states, actively at enmity with each other. And after the appearance of the Jews in the Palestinian lands, the Philistines began a fierce struggle against them. All this greatly complicated the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. And in 1600 BC. Jews move to Egypt.

Returning to Palestine at the turn of the XIII-XII centuries. BC, the Jews, in a long struggle with the local population, won the best part of it for themselves, fortified there and turned ancient Jerusalem into their political and religious center, forming a tribal union, called Israel. Having become sedentary farmers, the Jews gradually assimilated a significant part of the ancient population. At the same time, wars with city-states of other inhabitants of Palestine amounted to important part their activities, during which the first kings of Israel stood out and strengthened: Saul, David, Solomon. Later, during the struggle with the Philistines, in 995. BC. the Kingdom of Israel was formed, occupying a significant part of the Palestinian territories, and subsequently split into two individual kingdoms- Israeli in the north of Palestine and Judaic with the center in Jerusalem in the south (928 BC).

The contradictions between Arabs and Jews, which led to direct clashes between the parties, noticeably escalated at the end of the 19th century, when the Jews began to exercise their rights to Palestine in the form of Zionism - a religious and political movement for the revival of the Jewish people in their historical homeland.

In March 1897 Jews "of the whole world" were invited to send delegates to the Zionist Congress in Munich. Western European Jews were strongly opposed to this idea. Protests were sent first from the rabbis of Germany, and then from the Munich Jews, so that the congress had to be moved to the Swiss city of Basel. The First International Zionist Congress was attended by 197 delegates, most of them from of Eastern Europe. So the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was founded, which proclaimed the Jews a separate nation, setting itself the goal of achieving for it a "socially recognized and legally guaranteed home."

The State of Israel appeared on the political map of the world in May 1948, but the preparatory work for the creation of Jewish statehood was carried out long before that. For many centuries, Jews scattered throughout the world have been characterized by a desire to return to the "promised land", where their state once was. This movement was religious and political in nature. AT late XIX- early XX century. in accordance with the program of the first Congress of the World Zionist Organization (WZO), convened in 1897 in Palestine, the first Jewish settlements were created. Zionism (return to Zion), an ancient movement: for the revival of the Jewish people in their historical homeland, ”at this time acquired the character of a politically organized movement. At the same time, the first Zionist political parties appeared in Palestine, which served as the basis for the formation of the future multi-party system of Israel.

In 1920, British colonial administration was established in Palestine, which opened up wide opportunities for Zionist penetration into the country and the development of the socio-economic structure of the future state. By the end of World War II, over 80% of all Palestinian industry was in the Jewish sector.

However, the desire of the Jewish community for national and state sovereignty ran into stubborn resistance from the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs, led by their religious leaders, categorically refused to discuss the very possibility of dividing Palestine. Already 30s. were marked by violent political confrontations and armed conflicts between Jewish and Arab communities. In the post-war period, especially in 1947, they developed into a real war that engulfed most of the country. In such an environment, the British ruler The government was forced to refer the question of the future status of Palestine us for consideration by the UN.

On November 1947, the UN General Assembly by a majority vote (with the rarest mutual consent of the USSR and the USA) voted for the abolition of the British mandate regime in Palestine in May 1948 and the creation of two independent states on its territory - Arab and Jewish. At the same time, a representative body of the Jewish population, the People's Council, was created. Exactly at the hour of the expiration of British control in Palestine on the night of May 14-15, 1948, the People's Council held its meeting, at which one of the leading political leaders, D. Ben-Gurion, read out the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the creation of the State of Israel.

Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel, armies in neighboring Arab countries invaded its territory. The first Arab-Israeli war began. In it, Israel, relying on US assistance, managed not only to repel the offensive of the Arab forces, but also to annex 6.7 thousand square meters to its territory. km allocated by the UN for the Arab state, as well as the Western part of Jera salim. Jordan occupied the eastern part of the city and the western bank of the Jordan River, Egypt - the Gaza Strip. About 900 thousand Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave their areas of residence, for seized by the Israelis, and go into the position of refugees in neighboring Arab countries. Thus, along with the birth of the State of Israel, one of the most painful problems of our time arose - the Palestinian problem.

After the end of the first Arab-Israeli conflict, the foundations of statehood were formed. Almost all the officials of the interim government, nominated earlier by the People's Assembly, received ministerial portfolios in the first government of Israel. The People's Assembly moved to the position of the Israeli parliament - the Knesset. Thus, there is an obvious continuity between the legislative and executive bodies of the former community and the new state.

Palestinian War 1948-1949 and its consequences. Immediately after the proclamation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, the territory of Pa Lestini entered the troops of Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia and Yemen also declared war on Israel. The Arab states intended to stop the territorial expansion of the Zionists and prevent the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution No. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (on the division of Palestine). A significant role in inspiring the conflict was played by the policy of England and the United States, which sought to preserve, and the second, to establish control over the strategically important region of the Middle East.

In the initial period, hostilities developed in favor of the Arab armies. By the end of May-beginning of June, the Arab Legion of Transjordan and Iraqi troops occupied a significant part of Eastern Palestine, including the Arab sector of Jerusalem; one detachment from the Egyptian expeditionary force advanced to Isdud (Ashdod), located about 30 km south of Tel Aviv, and the other through Birsheba (Beersheba) reached the southern approaches to Jerusalem. On June 11, a truce was reached through the mediation of the United Nations. Israel used it for organizational and military-technical strengthening of its forces. Despite the efforts of the UN mediator in Palestine F. Bernadotte, on July 8 hostilities resumed. In the period leading up to the second ceasefire on 18 July, Israeli forces occupied almost all of northern Palestine.

As the conflict continued, the position of the Arab side was increasingly complicated by the influence of such factors as contradictions in the Arab camp and the treacherous policy of the monarchical regimes of Transjordan and Egypt, which prevented the coordination of military efforts, as well as the superiority of the Israeli army in organization and weapons.

In response to the British-supported maneuvers of the King of Transjordan Abdullah, aimed at keeping the eastern part of Palestine occupied by the Arab Legion as part of the kingdom, the creation of a Palestinian government headed by Ahmed Hilmi was proclaimed in September 1948 in Egyptian-controlled Gaza. He was recognized by all members of the League of Arab States, except for Transjordan. The latter inspired the convocation in Jericho of the national Palestinian congress, which proclaimed on December 1, 1948 Abdullah ko the role of Palestine.

In mid-October 1948, Israeli troops resumed their offensive, concentrating their main efforts in the southern direction. By the end of December, they managed to encircle part of the Egyptian troops near the city of Fallujah, push the main Egyptian forces back to the Gaza region and, developing an offensive in the Negev, enter Egyptian territory. In the north, the Israelis invaded Lebanon. On January 7, 1949, hostilities in Palestine ceased.

In February-July 1949, with the mediation of the UN on the island of Rho dos were signed temporary armistice agreements between Israel Lem, on the one hand, and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria, on the other. The system of truces was to be in place until the "final political agreement" to establish peace in Palestine. In April 1949, the UN Conciliation Commission on Palestine convened a conference of representatives of the Arab countries and Israel in Lausanne in order to settle disputed issues. The readiness expressed by the Israeli side in May 1949 to sign the Lausanne Protocol, which defined the resolutions of the UN General Assembly on Palestine as the basis for further discussions, was explained by the fact that it was at that time that the issue of Israel's admission to the UN was being decided. All subsequent attempts by the Conciliation Commission to achieve a shift in the Palestinian problem of the problem failed, primarily due to the failure of rail to cede the territories seized during the war and to allow re patriation of refugees. The system of Rhodes agreements, therefore, was not supported by further steps towards the conclusion of peace.

At that time, the Palestinian question included the following aspects: the territorial question, the question of the status of Jerusalem and the problem of Palestinian refugees. Most of the territory allotted for the Arab state in accordance with the UN resolution on the partition of Palestine (about 6.7 thousand square kilometers out of 11.1 thousand square kilometers) was captured by Israel. The remaining Palestinian lands, in accordance with the armistice agreements, were to come under the control of the Arab League. In July 1951, King Abdullah, accused of secret negotiations with Israel about Palestinian cause, was killed in Jerusalem by a member of the Palestinian terrorist organization Al-Jihad al-Muqaddas (Holy War).

Israel, not limited to the occupation of the western (new) part of Jerusalem during military operations, in January 1950, in violation of UN Resolution No. 181 (II), which provided for the granting of international status to the city, declared Jerusalem its capital and transferred the Knesset and most government institutions to it .

The most acute and dramatic side of the Palestinian problem was the situation of refugees.

According to the UN data for June 1950, the refugee 960 thousand out of 1350 thousand Palestinian Arabs became mi. Most of them ended up in the Palestinian territories adjacent to Israel: 425 thousand - on the West Bank of the river. Jordan and 225 thousand - in the Gaza Strip, and the rest immediately moved to the Arab countries, including 130 thousand to Lebanon, 85 thousand to Syria, more than 80 thousand to the East Bank of the Jordan.

The situation of the bulk of the refugees was extremely difficult: having abandoned their homes, land and property, they were left homeless and without any means of subsistence. The economy of the Arab countries that provided refugee asylum, primarily Jordan, which accepted the largest number of them, was not able to provide hundreds of thousands of destitute people with even the most necessary necessities. At the first stage, assistance was provided to them through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the PLO (FAO) and a number of other international organizations, as well as established in November 1948. United Nations Special Fund for Palestine Refugees. Since 1950, the UN Near East Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) took care of them. UNRWA (25 camps in Jordan, 15 in Lebanon, 8 in the Gaza Strip and 6 in Syria).

With limited financial resources, UNRWA could not fully cope with the tasks of employment, social and material security for refugees. Suffice it to say that in the early 1960s, the cost of food rations issued per inhabitant of the Palestinian camp did not exceed 7 cents a day, and UNRWA was able to provide housing for only 39.1% of the refugees. By lawsuits by residents of other livelihood camps often proved inconclusive. Over the years, the number of Palestinian exiles has increased. As a result of natural growth (an average of 3.2% per year) and the influx of new refugees from Israeli-controlled territories by June 1967, 1345 thousand people.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a clash of two territorial entities, ethnic communities for the right to create their own monocultural country and its universal recognition. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, two conflicting national movements arose to lay claim to Eretz Israel/Palestine. One of them was Zionism. It arose out of long-standing Jewish religious and historical aspirations, as well as in response to European anti-Semitism, and developed under the influence of national movements that existed in Europe. The Zionists called on Jews to immigrate to Eretz Israel in order to restore the Jewish national home two thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans. The second movement was Arab nationalism, which also arose from European nationalism and was initiated in Beirut and Damascus by Christian Arabs. Arab nationalism initially opposed the Ottoman Empire and then (after World War I) English and French colonialism. But in Palestine, where the Arab presence lasted some 1,400 years, Arab nationalism immediately clashed with the Zionist movement. Two peoples claimed the same land. The Palestinians demand "restoration of historical justice" and the return of millions of people, whom they call refugees, to the lands where their ancestors lived before the first Arab-Israeli war of 1947-1949. The overwhelming majority of Israelis are convinced that such a development will turn Israel into a binational Jewish-Arab state, and, given the high birth rate in the Arab sector, into a predominantly Arab state, in which life for the Jewish minority will be virtually impossible. At the same time, the degree of responsibility of the parties for the tragic events that occurred in 1947-1949 remains a subject of discussion.

Taking into account the contradictions that have arisen historically, three forms of relations between the parties to the conflict can be distinguished: a strong peace, an open large-scale war, an intermediate state characterized by outbreaks of struggle and short-term attempts to bring the warring parties closer to resolve differences.

An open large-scale war involving a significant number of forces from both sides, aimed at the final resolution of contradictions, is a theoretically possible phenomenon, but in practice such an outcome of events seems unlikely. Firstly, because in addition to the direct participants, other countries are also involved in the sphere of confrontation, both occupying the border area and located at a considerable distance from it. In the latter case, we are talking primarily about the United States and Russia. The former are interested in the existence of a strong independent Israel, which develops cooperation with Turkey and restrains the influence of Iran. For Russia, it is necessary to interrupt the confrontational tendencies in order to prevent the Arab world from turning into a power pole. Otherwise, Iran will be forced to curtail its activities in the north, which will ultimately lead to a highly undesirable clash of interests between Turkey and Russia.

Secondly, at present, for an open large-scale action against Israel, the Palestinian Authority does not have a sufficient degree of consolidation of forces. Thirdly, the very goal of a final resolution of contradictions looks unattainable.

The second theoretically possible option for resolving the conflict is the creation of a strong peace, and here it would be appropriate to turn to the history of Palestinian-Israeli relations.

In 1947, a UN commission proposed a plan for the partition of Palestine, accepted by the Jewish community, but rejected by the Palestinian Arabs. Over and over again, the terms of the proposed peace agreement became less favorable for the Arabs: in 1937 they were asked to create a state on more than 80% of the territory of Palestine, in 1947 - by 45%, in 2000 (at the negotiations at Camp David and in Taba) - by about 21-22%. Palestinian leaders have consistently rejected all these proposals, with the result that a Palestinian Arab state has not yet been created. The unwillingness of the political elite of the Arabs to compromise in any form, the rigid position "all - or nothing" leaves no chance for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

For the Israelis, it was a war of independence. Israel - the only country ever created by the decision of the United Nations - saw itself as the rightful successor to the rights of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historical homeland. For the Palestinians, the 1948 war was a disaster. The Arab world considered Israel an artificial entity founded by foreign invaders who stole the Holy Arab Land.

All of the above circumstances convincingly indicate that there can be no question of any kind of strong peace between the Palestinian and Israeli people. In such situations, the conclusion of peace for a long time is achieved either by the complete exhaustion of the forces of both sides, which, with the modern international one, incl. the financial support of both countries seems unlikely, or the destruction of one of the participants in the conflict, which again is impossible in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons. And this makes us turn to the third potentially possible and already existing version of the state of relations between the two sides - an intermediate stage between peace and war.

.2 Emergence of the Arab-Israeli conflict: causes and dynamics of its development

At the beginning of 1948, the Arabs made up more than two-thirds of the population of Mandatory Palestine, and most of the Palestinian lands were in their private ownership. The demographic situation changed dramatically in less than a year as a result of the mass migration of the Arab population during the first Arab-Israeli war. One of its consequences has been the problem of Palestinian refugees, divided, living in neighboring states and deprived of a significant part of their property.

Palestinian Arabs are not the only forced migrants as a result of the redivision of the world in the 20th century, but their problem is unique. Making up only two percent of the total number of refugees moving around the world after the Second World War, they still have not changed their status. The Arabs of Palestine became the only community whose fate was controlled by the international community, delaying the solution of their problem for many decades.

In all other cases, the governments of the states in which they sought asylum helped the refugees, the solution was either in the return of refugees to their historical homeland, or in integration into the communities of those countries in which they found themselves as a result of forced resettlement. This happened to the 8.5 million Indians and Sikhs who came to India from Pakistan; 6.5 million Muslims who went to Pakistan from India; 13 million Germans who moved from Eastern European countries to Germany; thousands of Bulgarian Turks and many other refugees, totaling 4 million.

The Palestinian paradox is all the more surprising, since the Palestinian Arabs had similarities in language, religion, level of social development and, in part, national identity with the peoples of most states in which they arrived. However, the only country that agreed to ensure the naturalization of the Palestinian refugees was Jordan. The rest of the Arab countries continued to keep the Palestinians in a powerless position in refugee camps for decades.

The UN, which failed to prevent the first Arab-Israeli war, faced a large-scale humanitarian and social problem. Hopes for a quick settlement soon dissipated, the problem of Palestinian refugees was on the agenda every year with all its urgency, but the search for its true solution continues to this day. UN representatives often acted as mediators between unwilling parties, who shifted responsibility for what had happened to each other and slipped into positions of mutual accusations. Some of the most pressing questions were who is to blame for the expulsion of the Palestinians, why the Palestinians left their homes and who is responsible for this.

There were also disputes about the historical rights of the Jewish or Arab people to Palestine. Thus, according to the Arab leaders, until the end of the First World War, its territory was an inseparable part of the surrounding Arab world. Israeli representatives, in turn, argued that it never happened that Jews did not live in Palestine, which was never ruled by Arabs.

The "Palestinian nationality" of the Arab refugees has also been the subject of debate. The demands of the refugees (or the Arab leaders representing them) were based on the fact that they were Palestinians. Consequently, their goal was to return to their homeland, i.e. to Palestine, usually referring to their homes in Israel. Israel's representatives responded by arguing that an Arab refugee from Israeli Palestine has practically "returned to his homeland" if he is in Arab Palestine (not part of Israel).

A very problematic question was how many "real" refugees from that part of Palestine, which was intended to create a Jewish state. For example, UNRWA (the UN Refugee Agency, set up at the initiative of the UN to assist refugees), Israel and the Arab states gave conflicting figures reflecting the number of refugees in 1948. The amount of compensation depended on these data. Israel officially declares that in 1948 520,000 people left its territory. UNRWA has registered 726,000 refugees, and according to Palestinian representatives, this figure reaches 900,000. These data have been questioned by independent researchers. According to the census conducted by the British in December 1944, a total of 525,500 Arabs lived in that part of Palestine on which the State of Israel was created, of which 170,430 people lived in cities, and 355,070 people lived in rural areas. Considering the fact that approximately 150 thousand people remained in Israel, and 35 thousand returned in 1949-1956, the total number of refugees of all ages (directly refugees, not counting their children born later) is just over 340 thousand people. The right of refugees to return was the most sensitive issue raised in the discussions. On November 19, 1948, at the third UN General Assembly, Resolution No. 212 was adopted, paragraph 11 of which contained the basic principles reflecting the UN's attitude to the issue of Palestine refugees. The resolution stated that "refugees who wish to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors" should be given the opportunity to carry out their intentions as soon as possible, and those who choose not to return will be compensated for abandoned property and compensated for damages " in accordance with the principles of international law”, for which the governments of the states affected by the problem will be responsible.

The interpretation of the eleventh paragraph became a constant stumbling block between the parties. The resolution spoke of refugees wishing to "live in peace with their neighbors", thus the return was directly linked to the establishment of peace. The phrase "refugees must be allowed to return as soon as possible" meant that only the sovereign State of Israel could authorize and determine the timeframe for return.

The Arabs could not accept such a condition. So, on October 14, 1955, Egyptian Prime Minister Nasser, in his interview to an American newspaper, said that "the hatred of the Arabs is very strong and there is no point in talking about peace with Israel." Arab leaders demanded for the refugees an absolute right to return to their abandoned homes or the right to choose between return and compensation. In his polemic with the Arab leaders, A. Even, Israel's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the UN (and later Minister of Foreign Affairs), put forward the following arguments against the idea of ​​the return (repatriation) of Palestinian refugees to Israel. First, he emphasized that the very term "repatriation" (from the Latin "patria" - homeland) is used incorrectly in this regard, since the arrival of Arab refugees from Arab lands to non-Arab lands is not a return to their homeland. He said: “Patria is not just a geographical concept. The resettlement of refugees in Israel will not be repatriation, but alienation from Arab society; only the process of uniting with people who share national feelings, cultural heritage and linguistic identity would be a real repatriation of the Arab refugee.”

The Arab countries treated the Palestinians not as people and representatives of their people, but only as a weapon with which to strike at Israel. This position was shared by Ralph Galloway, representative of the United Nations Refugee Agency in Jordan, who stated: “It is clear that the Arab states do not want to solve the problem of refugees. They seek to keep it as an open wound, as a challenge to the UN and a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't care if the Palestinians live or die."

As a result of the Six-Day War, Israeli control was established over all of the former Mandatory Palestine, over territories that were home to a significant number of refugees from the War of Independence. These included Judea and Samaria, occupied by Jordan in 1948, and the Gaza Strip, which was under Egyptian control. The Six Day War and its consequences have given the refugee problem a new dimension and created new problems.

After the Six Day War, a large number of Palestinians ended up in the territories controlled by Israel. This fact forced the Israeli administration to prove in practice the effectiveness of the measures to solve the problem, which it proposed to apply earlier. The policy of the Israeli leadership towards Arab refugees living in controlled territories was quite successful, while their situation improved significantly compared to the situation of Palestinians living in Arab countries, moreover, the number of their conflicts with the local administration was much less than with leadership of the Arab countries.

After 1967, more and more people began to talk not about Palestinian refugees, but about the Palestinian people, moving from demands for their return to Israel to demands for the creation of a Palestinian state.

The problem of refugees was discussed not only in the UN, but also in the framework of multilateral negotiations mediated by the United States between representatives of Israel and the Arab states, and subsequently the Palestinians themselves. Thus, the issue of refugee status was raised at international conferences: in 1949 in Lausanne, in 1950 in Geneva, in 1951 in Paris. Discussion of the issue resumed twenty years later - in December 1973 at a conference in Geneva after the Yom Kippur War, during the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations in September 1978 and at the Madrid Conference in October-November 1991. If the first three conferences were aimed at Since some progress has been made in resolving the issue of refugees, the mention of this topic at the conferences and negotiations of the 1970s and 1990s had a predominantly formal meaning, and neither side seriously counted on a change in the status quo. The turning point came during the negotiations at Camp David in July 2000 and at Taba in January 2001, when the government of Ehud Barak expressed its readiness to make unprecedented concessions on the Israeli side on the right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It is significant that the Arab representatives rejected all Israeli proposals on this issue - both half a century ago and in recent negotiations.

It is generally accepted that the Camp David conference failed because of the lack of agreement on the division of Jerusalem, but in fact the parties have made some progress over Jerusalem. In his article "The Problem of Refugees at Peace Conferences, 1949-2000" Shelley Freed argues that focusing on the Jerusalem issue was necessary "to avoid the conclusion that they cannot make progress on the refugee problem."

After the failure at Camp David, an additional conference between the two sides, without US mediation, was held in Taba in January 2001. The main topic discussed at this meeting was the declared "right of return" by the Palestinians. The work of the subcommittee, headed by Yossi Beilin, representing Israel, and Nabil Shaat from the Palestinians, however, also did not lead to the signing of an agreement.

The Taba talks made some progress on the future of the refugees. The Palestinians have shown a certain flexibility in solving the problem, which could open the horizon for serious negotiations that would not be influenced by the electoral interests of representatives of both sides. According to various reports, language was found in Taba that allowed the Palestinians not to waive their right to return, along with an agreement that in practice the solution would be to resettle the refugees outside of Israel. However, the general failure of the Taba talks prevented this plan from being tested.

Palestinian refugees are a unique political and social phenomenon. The problem has long gone beyond the settlement and resettlement of people deprived of their homes during hostilities, and affects a large ethnic community, whose members are descendants of refugees, an entire people without a state.

The main obstacle to the settlement of the conflict was the so-called "right of refugees to return". If initially it was about a "million" Palestinians, then over the past fifty years their number has increased significantly. It is obvious that now it is impossible to "return" to the territory of Israel 4 million people, who, moreover, have no historical memory of him. For the third generation of refugees born in the camps of Gaza and the East Bank, Israel is not their homeland. Israel alone can no longer cope with this problem, and the world community is now faced with the question of the status of an entire people.

For specialists dealing with the problems of the Middle East, it is no secret that water, and not just oil, is one of the hidden driving forces endless conflicts in the region. It is the distribution of water, and not land, that can be called one of the most likely causes of the next war. By 2025, approximately 2/3 of the world's population - about 5.5 billion people - is expected to live in areas facing water scarcity.

The leaders of the Middle Eastern countries unanimously recognize that the problem of water supply, in terms of its impact on the current and future development of the region, is becoming a priority and is becoming more important than oil in a number of respects. According to experts, by 2030 only 5 out of 19 countries in the region will be able to meet their water needs. In the light of the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict, the issue of the distribution of water resources is becoming one of the key issues.

Speaking of water resources, we should not forget about one of the most important factors influencing the dynamics of their supply and demand, namely, population growth. It should be noted that the issue of water supply occupied one of the main places in the strategic plans of the Zionist movement almost from the very beginning of its inception. Back in 1919, one of the leaders of Zionism, Chaim Weizmann, wrote in a letter to the British Prime Minister Lloyd George: “The supply of water to Palestine should come from the slopes of Mount Hermon, from the upper reaches of the river. Jordan and the Litani River in Lebanon…” In the same 1919, in a message to the English Laborites, D. Ben-Gurion emphasized: “It is required that the water sources on which the country’s future is based should not be outside the boundaries of the Jewish national home. We insist that Eretz Israel includes the southern bank of the Litani and the Hauran region. The country is in dire need of the main rivers of this land - the Yarmuk, the Litani and the Jordan." From the above statements it is clear that the issue of water resources concerned not only the economic future of the state, but also seemed to be one of the aspects of national security.

A detailed study of the problem of water resources from the perspective of the Middle East conflict gives grounds to assert that the policy of the Israeli government during the Arab-Israeli wars was aimed at obtaining access to water, which the Arab states had previously had. Thus, as a result of the war of 1948, the "six-day war" of 1967, the October war of 1973 and the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 1982, Israel gained control over a significant part of the water resources of the Jordan River, as well as over its underground and groundwater . It should be noted that in the occupied territory, all water resources were taken under the full state control of the Israeli authorities and began to be considered as objects of state property. As a result, the consumption of water by the Arab population has been drastically reduced. In addition, the water prices set by the Israeli authorities have quadrupled. On the Syrian-Israeli direction, the Golan Heights are the main strategic object. From the main height of the Golan, Mount Hermon originate the main northern tributaries of the river. Jordan: rivers Banias, Dan and Hasbani. Although the Golan area makes up only 1% of Syria, they account for 14% of controlled Syrian water supplies. As a result of the occupation by Israel in 1967 of part of the Golan Heights, the situation with water use has changed dramatically. The active settlement policy launched by the Israeli authorities led to the emergence of Israeli settlements in the Golan, the inhabitants of which had to be provided with access to water. As a result, from the first days of the occupation, Israel established tight control over the distribution of water. For the Arab inhabitants of the Golan, a ban was introduced on planting various types of fruit trees, they were forced to destroy a significant number of reservoirs (of the previously existing 400, only 3-4 have survived to date), they were almost completely cut off from the largest natural reservoir of the Golan - Lake. Ram. The lack of water has left the Arab population of the Golan Heights facing serious irrigation and sanitation problems. The situation turned out to be so disastrous that many residents of the Arab villages were forced to leave this territory (during the 20 years of occupation, the number of Arab residents decreased by 10 times: from 100 to 10 thousand people).

On the Lebanese-Israeli direction, the Litani River is a vital water resource. It was she who became the motive for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in March 1978 (“Operation Litani”) and in June 1982 (“Peace in Galilee”).

These facts indicate that one of the goals of Israel in its wars with the Arabs was to provide the country with water resources, and this goal was achieved. Approximately 67% of Israel's water resources come from the Arab lands occupied from 1967 to 1982. Of these, 43% is in South Lebanon, 35% in the West Bank and the remaining 22% in the Golan Heights.

The Israeli occupation of part of the Arab territories has led to the emergence of a huge number of economic and political problems. The issue of a fair redistribution of water resources in the region is an integral part of any problem that exists between Israel and the Arab countries.

The “water issue” in the Palestinian-Israeli direction led to the adoption by the parties of a number of agreements: the Declaration on the principles of organizing interim self-government (“Oslo 1”), signed on September 13, 1993, the Cairo Agreement (“Gaza-Jericho”) of May 4, 1994 and the Taba Agreement (“Oslo 2”) of September 28, 1995. As a result, the Palestinian Authority for Water Supply was created, and an agreement was reached on joint management of the water use process. Under the Cairo Agreement, water management in the Gaza Strip and Jericho was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. However, not all issues related to water use have been resolved by signing the above agreements. The signing of the Final Status Agreement was supposed to be the final step in the distribution of water resources between Israel and the Palestinians. However, the curtailment of the Madrid process and a new wave of tension on the Palestinian-Israeli track nullified the agreements reached earlier and cast doubt on the effectiveness of any attempts at a peaceful settlement.

The problem of water resources in the region remains a stumbling block in relations between Israel and the Arab states.

Compared to other aspects of the Arab-Israeli territorial disputes, the issue of Jerusalem is much more internationalized, primarily in terms of the involvement of the United Nations in the situation. If we formally follow the letter of Resolutions 181 and 303 of the UN General Assembly, Jerusalem is a territory that should be under the administration of UN institutions. Therefore, the UN has (or should have) a special responsibility for this city. Jerusalem is a territory alienated by Israel from the UN, and this circumstance makes this organization not just an observer and mediator, but a direct participant in the conflict. From 1947 to the present, the UN has adopted many documents that have created a complex and contradictory legal field around Jerusalem, which should be guided by the drafters of peacekeeping plans and which - directly or indirectly - has a great influence on the position of both Israel and the Palestinians.

Adopted on November 29, 1947, Resolution of the UN General Assembly No. 181 recommended that Jerusalem and its environs be allocated as a special unit - corpus separatum, which is under the control of UN institutions. Throughout the period of the British Mandate, Western Christendom had a clear desire to keep Jerusalem. This was explained, firstly, by the perception of Jerusalem as a religious and historical fiefdom of the Christian world. Secondly, the fear that if Jerusalem falls under the control of any of the Middle Eastern countries, it will be difficult for believing Christians to access holy places in the city. The separation of Jerusalem into an independent unit under international control was perceived as the best solution to the issue after the departure of the British. In addition, the principle of corpus separatum was supported by the Vatican, and the great powers, especially the United States, were forced to reckon with the religious feelings of their own Catholics, as well as with the position of the Catholic states in which they wanted to maintain political influence.

The Soviet position on Palestine consisted, first of all, in demanding the speedy departure of the British and the transfer of the decision of the fate of Palestine to the hands of the UN, which was to be the beginning of Soviet expansion in the region. In parallel, Moscow tried to counteract the rapid growth of American influence. The future of Jerusalem was of interest to the Soviet leadership only in this context.

In the West, the religious component in approaches to the problem of Jerusalem was most clearly expressed in the position of the Catholic states. Historically, Catholics have been a minority among the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem. In this situation, the main trump card of the Vatican was the presence in the UN of a wide faction of Catholic countries. On April 15, 1949, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical on Palestine, in which every Catholic was ordered to make every effort to internationalize Jerusalem.

The pragmatic political interests of the United States in Jerusalem consisted of the following considerations:

The gradual realization that the preservation of Jerusalem under the control of the UN will require the intervention of military peacekeeping forces and serious financial injections. At the same time, the United States had no desire to take responsibility for either the first or the second.

The desire to prevent Soviet influence in Jerusalem.

Members of the UN, who accepted the idea of ​​territorial internationalization, practically did not try to implement it. As early as February 16, 1948, the UN Commission on Palestine informed the Security Council that it would not be able to fulfill its duties after the end of the British Mandate without the help of military force. The UN bore full responsibility for preventing hostilities in Jerusalem, but neither before nor after the said statement, the UN did not take any serious measures to protect the city. The UN withdrew itself from the decision on the implementation of the principle of corpus separatum, on the protection of the population of Jerusalem and holy places.

So far, only one document has been adopted that addresses the problem of Jerusalem - the Road Map plan. The text states that in the third phase, called “Achieving an agreement on a final settlement and ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”, a Second International Conference will be convened. Its aims are "the establishment of an agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state within provisional boundaries and the official commencement of the process, with the active, consistent and prompt support of the Quartet, leading to the achievement in 2005 of an agreement on a final settlement, including the issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements, as well as the early achievement of a comprehensive settlement with Syria and Lebanon.” This wording looks very vague. On the one hand, as the name of the third stage suggests, the settlement of the question of Jerusalem is seen as an element of the settlement of the bilateral Palestinian-Israeli conflict. On the other hand, the question of Jerusalem is linked to an international conference and even to the achievement of an Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese settlement. Of course, it is now obvious that nothing of the kind happened in 2005, but the Road Map is still formally considered by the Quartet, including the UN, as the main settlement plan for today, even with changed deadlines.

2. Arab-Israeli conflict in the era of a multipolar world order

.1 Efforts by the global community to resolve the conflict

On June 24, 2002, US President George W. Bush delivered a speech that marked the beginning of the implementation of a new plan to resolve the Middle East crisis, based on some principles, the effectiveness and necessity of which have been confirmed by many years of practice. For example, the new plan is based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 adopted in the peace process. Their essence lies in the following requirements: 1) a ceasefire, 2) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories through war, 3) confirmation of the need for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories, 4) a just solution to the problem of refugees, 5) the need to end all claims or the state of war and respect and recognition of the territorial integrity, political independence of every state in the region of the Middle East and the right to live in peace, within secure and recognized borders, free from the threat or use of force.

The main points of the plan:

) this plan involves "international control" over its implementation, it will be carried out by the EU, the USA, Russia, the UN;

) the settlement of the process is divided into three stages, as a result of which, by 2005, a permanent state of Palestine will be formed in the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza Strip.

The name "Road Map" was given to the document not by chance: its stages are a kind of segments on the way to a peaceful settlement, and the transitional moments from one stage to another are a kind of road signs or kilometer posts.

Stage 2: The Palestinians are obliged to create a new cabinet of ministers, introduce the post of prime minister, refrain from actions in support of terror against the Israelis. When the Palestinians have new leaders, new laws, and new security measures for their neighbors, the US will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of sovereignty will be temporary until a final settlement in the Middle East comes.

The Israelis are required to destroy the settlements created during the rule of A. Sharon, withdraw troops from the territories they occupied after the uprising that began in 2000, and suspend construction in Israeli settlements.

Stage 2: efforts are concentrated on the creation of an independent Palestinian state with temporary borders, the attributes of sovereignty are determined. In this form, the state will play the role of a way station on the way to a permanent settlement

Stage 2: permanent status agreement and end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The transition to the third stage will be carried out on the basis of the Quartet's consensus and taking into account the results of the monitoring conducted by both sides. The objectives of the third stage are the continuation of reforms, the strengthening of Palestinian institutions, the fulfillment of Palestinian security obligations, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at reaching a permanent status agreement during 2005.

Various aspects of the Roadmap plan have caused great amount contradictions not only between the opposing Arabs and Israelis. Even within the Middle East Quartet itself, there are frictions on a number of issues. The first of them manifested itself immediately after the June speech of George W. Bush and his statement that the United States would support the creation of a Palestinian state only on the condition that "the Palestinian people will have new leaders, new institutions of power and a new organization of security measures with neighboring states." It was obvious that this statement meant the unacceptability of Yasser Arafat as the leader of the PNA and a participant in future peace negotiations. However, despite all the hostility of the American president to this man, Russia, the EU and the UN recognized Arafat as the only legally elected leader of the Palestinian people and believed that only the Palestinian people had the right to choose their leader.

The European Union is in favor of the immediate cessation of Israel's construction of new settlements without preconditions. The United States, while continuing to adhere to the traditional view that settlements are the main obstacle to peace, nevertheless agrees with the Israeli position that their construction cannot be frozen while terrorist attacks by the Palestinians continue.

Undoubtedly, among the members of the Quartet there is more agreement on the implementation of the Road Map plan than within any other party interested in a Middle East settlement, and in resolving contentious issues they most often come to a consensus. For example, the refusal of the United States to officially announce the removal of Arafat from the post of head of the Palestinian Autonomy, but instead the adoption of the Quartet's decision to reduce the leader's power and introduce the post of prime minister. “As a result of efforts, we managed to formulate a proposal that includes a very complex balance of interests of the parties to the conflict,” said Russian Foreign Minister I. Ivanov.

The opinion of the Israelis regarding the "Road Map" also cannot be called unified. According to the results of sociological surveys conducted as part of the peace project, it turned out that about 20% of the entire Jewish population of Israel is categorically against any kind of peace agreements with the Arabs, and half of those who recognize the Road Map plan as one of the likely ways of settlement, believe that it just won't work.

On the issue of Palestinian refugees, the Israelis insist on a limited return to their former place of residence, motivating this statement with very simple mathematical calculations. Israel is home to 5.1 million Jews and about 1.26 million Arabs. If all the refugees return home, then the Arab population will increase to about 6 million people, and this will mean the actual end of the Jewish nation-state.

The plan announced a limited number of Palestinian refugees who have a legal right to return home, and according to the Palestinians, every refugee has the right to return. The Palestinians also confirm this statement by the fact that the Jews have the right to return to their historical homeland after more than 2000 years, while the Arab population left these territories only a few decades ago and also has the right to return.

In settling the Middle East conflict, one cannot ignore the positions of the countries surrounding Israel and Palestine. The first group is Jordan and Egypt, whose position is mainly focused on the United States. At the moment, these countries are at peace with Israel, their recognition of Israel as a state has taken place and is officially fixed. Their main task is to convince the Israelis and Palestinians to accept the Road Map in its original form, it is about pushing only Israel to accept, because. for the Palestinians, in the eyes of these countries, the plan is more beneficial. Jordan supports it without making any significant changes. The second group of countries is Lebanon and Syria. In their opinion, the "Road Map" is just another attempt by the United States to bring the situation in the Middle East in a beneficial direction. As long as the US is proposing plans, the Palestinians will not have the opportunity to speak with Israel on an equal footing.

Today, the objective reality is such that the civil war actually going on in the Gaza Strip and threatening to spread to the West Bank of the Jordan River is gradually turning from an “ideological” conflict between “secular nationalists” from Fatah and “Islamic radicals” from Hamas into an armed confrontation between various tribalist , community-clan and religious-sectarian groups, of which, in essence, the local Arab-Palestinian society consists.

It is already clear that the experiment to quickly consolidate these groups of different origins into something remotely resembling a single community has failed, there is no “Palestinian nation”. This implies the impossibility of the emergence in the Palestinian territories in the foreseeable future of a relatively stable regime with which it would be possible to conduct a dialogue according to the “peace in exchange for territories” scheme, and Israel is unlikely to be able to separate from the Palestinian Arabs in one form or another, leaving them to themselves deal with their problems while maintaining a relatively peaceful status quo.

Today, not only the Israeli right, but also quite a few representatives of the left flank of Israeli politics, as well as the majority of centrists, believe that the events taking place in the “territories” are quite capable of removing the idea of ​​a Palestinian state from the agenda altogether. Nevertheless, representatives of the Palestinian Authority continue contacts with representatives of the world community: on February 19, 2007, a meeting was held in Jerusalem between Israeli Prime Minister E. Olmert, PNA head M. Abbas and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It did not achieve any concrete results on a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. The participants of the meeting confirmed the previous agreements and agreed on a new round of negotiations. A week later, M. Abbas visited Great Britain, Germany and France. The main purpose of his trip was to obtain support for the emerging Palestinian government of national unity and lifting the blockade from the Palestinian territories. In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that progress can be made in the Middle East settlement by appealing to the "reasonable" members of Hamas. In Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the creation of a coalition government by the Palestinians, but at the same time, on behalf of the European Union, she stressed that the new cabinet should renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and all previously concluded Palestinian-Israeli agreements. In Paris, M. Abbas asked the President of France to act as an intermediary in establishing negotiations between the new Palestinian government and Israel. France promised to cooperate with the coalition Palestinian government. Hamas leader H. Mashaal also made a trip abroad to receive support for the government of national unity being formed. On February 22, a regular meeting of the international "quartet" on Middle East settlement was held in Berlin. Its participants confirmed that the new Palestinian government must be committed to the demands of the international community.

In the period from March 26 to April 1, 2007, the most important events in the region were associated with the next (XIXth) summit of the Arab League member countries in Riyadh (March 28-29) and Iran. The meeting of the top leaders of the Arab states, practically without changes, confirmed the Saudi plan for the Arab-Israeli settlement of 2002.

The main outcome of the all-Arab summit in Riyadh was the unanimous confirmation by its participants of their commitment to the plan for a peaceful settlement with Israel, adopted at the summit meeting in Beirut in 2002. As you know, this document provides for Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories seized in 1967, recognition them an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees (the right to return to former places their residence). In response, the Arabs pledge to recognize Israel, sign peace agreements with it and establish normal relations. The plan, according to the plan of the Arabs, should become "a platform for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East." Riyadh urged Israel to "accept the Arab initiative and seize the opportunity to resume direct negotiations on all fronts." A special commission has been set up consisting of Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which should establish contacts with the UN Secretary General, members of the UN Security Council, the international Quartet on the Middle East settlement (Russia, the USA, the EU, the UN) and other interested parties. The aim of the contacts is to restart the peace process and secure support for the Arab initiative. The decisions of the summit on BVU were supported by Russia, the European Union, and the UN Secretary General. The United States regards them as an attempt to "make contacts with Israel" and "act constructively in the interests of all the powers in the region." Israel reacted to the decisions of the summit with very cautious optimism, but, as before, does not agree with the demand for the right to return refugees to their former places of residence.

In general, the results of the Riyadh meeting showed the desire of the Arab countries to move the process of resolving the conflict with Israel off the dead center, to try to overcome the differences in the Arab world through dialogue and restore mutual trust, and to give a new impetus to Arab solidarity.

The UN, the European Union, the US and Russia are members of the Quartet on the Middle East settlement, but the role of each of them is far from clear. Europe's main weakness is that today it is not a sufficiently recognized actor who can advance the peace process and who is trusted by the parties. There are several obstacles to an effective common foreign policy in the EU in the Middle East and, in particular, in relation to Israel.

Prior to the appointment of an EU envoy in 1996, Europe was riven in Middle Eastern affairs by hidden rivalries rooted in different historical experiences. Today's foreign policy, which does not cross the borders of relations between EU members, will not be able to turn the EU into an active, influential, valuable actor. Representatives from European countries are practically inaudible in the region, they are not remembered for their activities or statements. This is partly due to the principle of European institutions - the changing presidency in foreign affairs. Responsible persons change constantly and quite often, which harms the effectiveness of activities. While US representatives in the Middle East surround themselves with the press and talk a lot in public, European representatives keep a low profile. But image is not just about the media. This is also the result of activities in the field of education. It should be noted that there are very few centers for the study of the problems of the Middle East in European universities. Constant concern for American support or following US initiatives. Fearful of displeasing America, Europeans often follow in the wake of its policies, even when it is contrary to their own interests.

The internal situation in Europe is not conducive to good relations with Israel: about 10% of the population of the Maghreb countries live in Europe. Of these, 3 million people - in France alone. About 2 million Turks live in Germany, of which at least 400 thousand are ethnic Kurds. This creates influential lobbies in European countries. The role of pro-Israel lobbying groups in Europe is relatively weak. In Europe, where Jewish and other pro-Israeli organizations are less numerous and less influential than in the US, there is no Israeli lobbying pressure on the authorities.

Geographical proximity determines Europe's interest in the peace process. Europe is exposed to the consequences of underdevelopment and instability in the Middle East, terrorism, illegal immigration, smuggling, as well as more dangerous manifestations, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Progress in the Arab-Israeli negotiations is not the final, but a necessary condition for the elimination of all these threats.

After European countries were terrorized by the Palestinians in the 1970s, most continental European governments to this day look back at how their policies might be perceived by radical elements in the Arab world.

Europe is also more dependent on energy imports from the Middle East. European countries, with the exception of Great Britain and Norway (which have their own oil reserves), depend on oil imports by 50%. And a large share of these imports come from the Middle East and North Africa. Although the sources of oil can be changed, Europe's heavy dependence on energy imports determines to this day its interest in ensuring stability in the Arab world.

In theory, the EU has enough size, wealth, military capability and interest in the peace process to be as much of an intermediary as the US. In practice, the EU envoy represents dozens of nations of varying weight, with different perspectives, different goals, different historical experience. Many countries consider the sphere of foreign policy to be personal, not subject to subjugation to common European interests, as a sphere of their sovereignty.

The difference between European states follows from their geographical location, culture and historical role in the region. The UK has historically warm relations and close trade ties with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman and, unlike its European partners, is not dependent on oil imports. France has special "kinship" feelings and responsibility for Lebanon with its Christian minority, and sympathy for Iraq, where France has long supported the secular Ba'ath regime. Italy has a special trade relationship with Libya, thanks to which it receives a large amount of oil. In addition, it is particularly susceptible to the influx of refugees and immigrants from Arab countries. Germany has had a special relationship with Israel since the Holocaust, and the Netherlands also has historical ties to Israel, which they have long supported more strongly than their other European partners. Greece's relations with Israel are deteriorating due to links with the Arab world as Israel's growing strategic partnership with Turkey, Greece's historical adversary, worsens.

The EU's difficulty in pursuing a common effective Middle East policy is primarily the result of the differing views and interests of its most important members. These problems are exacerbated by the inability of the EU's institutional structures to develop a unified approach where one does not exist.

In the light of these facts, we can conclude that the European Union is not always united in its foreign policy towards the Middle East. There are countries more or less inclined to support and cooperate with Israel in different reasons. But in general, some general trends can be identified. In the field of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, European countries are characterized by an increasing desire to take part in negotiations, since the role of a sponsor and an outside observer did not suit everyone. In the economic sphere, however, there is a noticeable interest both in the benefits of economic and scientific cooperation with Israel, and in the prospects for cooperation in the Middle East region as a whole. And although the idea of ​​cooperation today is clearly untenable, in 1994-2000. some steps have been taken to get the parties accustomed to meeting and negotiating their economic relations. However, pan-European trends are gradually leaning away from Israel. In both France and Germany, with the passing of the Holocaust generation, public opinion has increasingly condemned Israel's policies.

On October 2003, the UN General Assembly, at its 10th emergency special session, approved a resolution requiring Israel to "stop building and dismantle the 'security wall' in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

The resolution comes after the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution a week earlier to condemn Israel's construction of a barrier wall. As is known, the right of veto does not work in the General Assembly. Unlike UN Security Council resolutions, UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but they reflect the attitude of the world community to a particular international event. 144 UN members voted in favor of the resolution, 4 voted against (USA, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia), 12 countries abstained.

The main claims of the General Assembly boiled down to the fact that the line of the wall under construction does not coincide with the so-called green line and in fact annexes Palestinian lands, including the territory of East Jerusalem. In response to these accusations, Israeli Prime Minister A. Sharon said that "terror built the wall" and that the protective wall is a temporary step that Israel took to prevent terrorist attacks until the full political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

February 2004 fifteen judges of the International Court of Justice heard the opinion of only one side - the Palestinian and the Arab. The first session of the court opened with a speech by the head of the delegation of the Palestinian National Authority, Ambassador of Palestine to the UN H. al-Kidwa, who actually called international community impose sanctions on Israel. N. al-Kidwa said that the construction of the wall "consolidates the occupation and poses a threat to a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Secretary General of the League of Arab States A. Musa in his speech noted that "the construction of the wall, as a result of which the Palestinians will lose 40% of the territory of the West Bank, is an unprecedented violation of generally recognized legal norms."

The Palestinians believe that the construction of the separation wall symbolizes the "foreignness of the Zionist entity in the Middle East" and, accordingly, the inability of the Israelis to integrate into the region. According to representatives of the Palestinian government, Israel decided to boycott the International Court of Justice because "it will not be able to defend its position, which is nothing more than a manifestation of racism." According to Palestinian leadership spokesman S. Erikat, the separation wall is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli government to sabotage Bush's plan to create a Palestinian state, undermine the peace process and destroy the road map. The Palestinians say they have no objection to Israel's construction of a separation wall along the Green Line or on Israeli territory.

In addition, the Palestinians argue that if Israel continues to carry out its plans to build a wall, then the PNA leadership will consider the possibility of declaring Palestinian independence. However, it is hard to imagine what such a "patchwork state" would look like, set up in the isolated Palestinian territories of the West Bank, interspersed with Jewish settlements. (There are 75 Israeli settlements in the West Bank, where about 300,000 Israelis live).

During the tour in mid-February 2004 of PNA Prime Minister A. Qurei to European countries in order to obtain moral support for the Palestinian position on the issue of building a "security wall", not a single leader of European states expressed his approval of Tel Aviv's actions. Yes, head catholic church Pope John Paul II stated that "understanding on holy ground needs forgiveness, not vengeance, bridges, not walls." EU High Representative for Foreign Policy J. Solana said that the construction of the "security wall" and the expropriation of Palestinian possessions for its construction in the West Bank "does not comply with international law."

Many international humanitarian and human rights organizations have condemned the construction of a protective wall in the Palestinian territories. A week before the start of the hearing in international court in The Hague on the legitimacy of the Israeli separation wall, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appealed to Israel "not to plan or build a separation barrier in the occupied territories."

As the Israeli author A. Eldar notes, “as a result of the construction of a system of separation walls, the Palestinians will become prisoners in their own country, completely dependent on the goodwill of the occupying authorities, driven like cattle into a corral behind barbed wire, from which they will not come out without special passes. This is the Middle East version of apartheid, conceived and carried out by A. Sharon. So the purpose of the wall is not to separate the West Bank from Israel, but to drive the Palestinians onto the reservation." Since it is almost impossible to exist normally under such conditions, this will eventually lead to the resettlement of Palestinians in other countries. As noted by Israeli researchers G. Algazi and A. Bdeir, "Palestinian society runs the risk of being left without people and abandoning the dream of independence."

The leading Arab countries unanimously condemned Israel's construction of a "racist separation wall". Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, during a press conference on February 10, 2004 in Riyadh, qualified the construction of the wall as an attempt to change the status quo and divide Palestine into cantons. He called on the United States and the world community to intervene immediately to end Israel's unilateral actions. One of the few Arab leaders who maintains a dialogue with the Israeli leadership, Jordanian King Abdullah II, during a meeting in Amman in mid-February 2004 with former Israeli Prime Minister Sh. Peres, once again condemned the construction of the "separation wall", noting that "it poses a threat to Jordan and a future independent Palestinian state."

The US President's position on disunity turned out to be quite definite. From time to time, representatives of the US administration made "remarks" to the Israeli government regarding the possible negative impact of the separation wall on the formation of an independent Palestinian state in the future. However, during one of his meetings with A. Sharon, George Bush said the following: "We must negotiate to make sure that the wall sends the right signal to the Palestinians."

It is obvious that the construction of the "protective wall" creates a new reality, a new additional obstacle in the way of Israeli-Palestinian settlement and the formation of an independent Palestinian state.

The positions of the members of the "quartet", created to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are quite contradictory and uncertain. The European Union is an association of states with different views on how to resolve Middle East disputes. The United States of America, positioning itself as the most active participant in the peace process, nevertheless takes or approves actions directly or indirectly aimed at aggravating contradictions (as was the case with the construction of the separation wall). The activities of the United Nations and the resolutions adopted by it significantly complicated the situation with the determination of the final status of Jerusalem. As for the Russian Federation, it would be appropriate to refer to the Review of Russian Foreign Policy, approved by V.V. Putin in 2007

“The political and diplomatic settlement of crisis situations, especially in the Near and Middle East, has no reasonable alternative,” the document says. - Russia cannot join ultimatums that drive everyone into a dead end, create new crises in an already seriously destabilized region, and strike at the authority of the UN Security Council. The use of force to enforce peace should be an exceptional measure to which the international community may resort, in strict accordance with the UN Charter, if all other avenues for conflict resolution have been exhausted.”

The root cause of the problems faced by the countries of the Middle East is the unsettledness of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And efforts aimed at unblocking the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remain among the priorities of Russian Middle East policy. “Russia sees its task in that the leadership of Israel, the PNA and the Arab states make the right decisions aimed at ending the confrontation and transferring conflict situations towards a political settlement. So far, there is no realistic alternative to the Quartet as a mechanism for collective external influence on the situation in the second-tier banks, and it is necessary to promote its effectiveness and efficiency.”

Resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515 of the UN Security Council are called as the basis for decision-making, it is proposed to convene an international conference on the Middle East, the need for an integrated approach, involving all interested parties, including Syria and Iran, in international efforts to resolve is emphasized.

The ultimate goal is considered to be the development of a system of regional security in the Middle East with the participation of all countries of the region, which would include the provision of equal guarantees of military security, the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons.

2.2 The Arab-Israeli conflict in the light of the intensification of international terrorism

The colonization of Palestine by international Zionist organizations and the Arab-Israeli wars that followed the formation of the State of Israel in 1948. With the consent of the British government, set forth in the so-called "Balfour letter" (1917), the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in the 20s. 20th century began buying land in Palestine and expanding the emigration of Jews in order to prepare the conditions for the creation of the State of Israel in the Palestinian territory.

The confrontation that arose between the Palestinians and the Jews subsequently escalated into an armed confrontation. The Irgun and Stern organizations appeared in the Jewish community and began terrorist activities not only against the local population, but also against British institutions in Palestine and their personnel. For example, in April 1948, the Irgun militants carried out a massacre of the population in the Arab village of Deir Yassin, which they captured, by shooting 254 of its inhabitants. In 1940-1945. Jewish terrorists carried out the assassination in Cairo of the British Minister for the Middle East, Lord Moten; attempts were made to assassinate Prime Minister A. Eden and E. Barker, who commanded British troops in Palestine, with the help of miniature explosive devices built into postal items, etc.

The attacks against the British were intended to force the British authorities to lift their restrictions on the entry of Jews into Palestine. The activities of the Irgun and Stern were directed by the illegally created Jewish Agency (EA) intelligence service, with the subsequent name "Old Mossad".

The leaders of the EA, ignoring the decision of the UN, unilaterally proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948, which led to an armed confrontation between the Palestinians and Israelis, which soon escalated into the first Arab-Israeli war.

About 1 million Palestinians were forced to emigrate to neighboring Arab countries. Among them, Palestinian organizations of various orientations arose, which turned out to be united in one thing - using all means, including terrorism, to destroy Israel and create their own state in Palestine.

Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, providing support and assistance to Palestinian organizations, sought to use the latter in their political plans. The emergence of Israel was extremely negatively perceived in the Muslim world. The founder of the Egyptian organization "Muslim Brotherhood" Hassan al-Banna called the emergence of the Jewish state "the penetration of Zionism into Palestine and a challenge to the Arab nation and Islam."

Strengthening since the 1920s XX century, US expansion in the Near and Middle East. The Treaty of Versailles (January 1920) provided the United States with great opportunities to start their expansion in the region, especially since the Middle East began to turn into the center of world oil production. In 1924, the United States, on the basis of an American-British agreement, became co-owners of the League of Nations mandate to govern Palestine, and in 1948, American troops were already entering Lebanon under the pretext of "providing security in the region." The US Middle East policy, largely focused on strengthening the strategic partnership with Israel, has contributed to the fact that the anti-American orientation has increasingly taken a leading place in the aspirations and actions of terrorist organizations in the region.

The rise of fundamentalist Islamic radicalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the formation of an ideological vacuum in the Near and Middle East, which began to quickly fill with various kinds of concepts based on the constructs of radical Islam.

The basis of Islamic radicalism, including Wahhabism, is the provision on takfir (accusation of disbelief) and the doctrine of jihad (holy war for faith).

Israel and the USA are declared as the main opponents of radical Islam. The spiritual mentor of the Iranian "Islamic revolution" R. Khomeini quite figuratively stated: "If every Muslim pours a bucket of water on Israel, the flood will destroy this Zionist state."

Islamic radicals oppose the expansionist policy of Israel, against its suppression of the actions of the Palestinian people, demanding the creation of their own independent state. The anti-American orientation of Islamic radicalism is explained by the protest of the international Islamic community against the westernization of life in Muslim countries, as well as by the fact that the United States constantly acts as an ally of Israel and constantly interferes in the internal affairs of Islamic countries, while pursuing its own selfish goals. Islamist tendencies have become a constant factor in public life in the Arab countries, and the stronger the degree of Westernization in them, the stronger the public protest in Muslim countries, the more active are the processes of formation of the radical opposition, its participation in protests against the ruling regimes.

The failure of the Middle East settlement (BVU). The term “Middle East Settlement” (MES) is commonly understood as a peaceful settlement of the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict, the core of which is the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation over ways to create an independent Palestinian state as part of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River.

The right of the Palestinians to form their own state is enshrined in relevant UN decisions, as well as international treaties, including the Palestinian-Israeli "Declaration and principles of an interim settlement" signed in Oslo (Norway) in 1993.

Israel's refusal to comply with these agreements and the use of its armed forces to suppress Palestinian protests led to an uprising ("intifada") of the Palestinians (December 1987) and new actions in early 2000 ("intifada-2"), which took on a wide scope led to the participation of armed groups of Palestinian organizations in them and the intensification of their terrorist activities against the military and civilian population of Israel.

Israelis meet the most active resistance from the extremist Islamic organizations Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Islamic Jihad, advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine.

The Israeli authorities carry out mass arrests among the participants in the uprising, resort to executions of rallies and demonstrations, bombardment of the administrative institutions of the Palestinian National Autonomy (PNA), including the residence of its President Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians themselves, as well as some foreign media, qualify these actions of the Israeli authorities as state terrorism (terror).

The attempts of the BVU cosponsors (the USA, the Soviet Union - Russia, some Western countries) to determine the ways of establishing peace in Palestine seem to be unsuccessful. The main reason for the failure of the BVU is the too pro-Israeli position of the United States, which does not allow infringement of its "strategic ally". The American administration is now, together with Israel, in favor of removing Yasser Arafat from power and replacing him with a more "compliant" Palestinian politician.

The actions of the US and Israel against the Palestinians contribute to the surge of anti-Israeli, anti-American terrorism not only in the PNA and Israel, but also in neighboring Arab countries.

In September 2002, the "quartet" of international mediators, consisting of representatives of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, prepared in New York a draft plan for a phased BVU, the implementation of which should result in the proclamation of a Palestinian state in 2005.

However, the implementation of this plan has been called into question as a result of the second war in the Gulf, initiated by the Americans. The Israeli authorities support the implementation of American plans for the "restructuring" of the Middle East.

At the same time, it should be noted that the actions of Palestinian organizations against Israel, the terrorist attacks they carry out, disorganize Israeli society, damage the country's economy, lead to the intensification of extremism and terrorism in Israel, and complicate its international position.

Only the future can answer the question of whether certain events that have become the center of attention of the whole world are really historical, epochal, capable of having deep and long-term consequences, or whether the suddenness and drama of these events involuntarily makes people exaggerate their significance.

One way or another, the shock that humanity experienced on September 11, 2001, when planes hijacked by terrorists crashed into buildings in New York and Washington, made the world think about the causes and possible consequences of this catastrophe. “What drives these people and can we expect anything even more terrible from them in the very near future?” - this question is asked everywhere.

A myriad of works have been written about international terrorism: it would seem that this phenomenon has already been studied far and wide, and yet, there is always something ominously mysterious, as if irrational, not fully understood in it. No wonder the American professor Martha Crenshaw wrote not so long ago: “The scientific community has yet to achieve an intellectual understanding of why terrorism exists. Neither the causes of terrorism nor its consequences can be satisfactorily explained." However, it is still necessary to try to explain: the monstrous drama of September 11 showed that the dragon of terrorism is not only alive and full of strength, but is really rearing up.

It is international terrorism, which goes beyond the local framework, that is recognized today, perhaps, as the main danger threatening humanity in the coming century. And we have to admit that this sphere of terrorist activity is dominated by what is usually - and incorrectly - called "Islamic terrorism". In general, the correctness of the wording in such a sensitive issue is especially important. When they say: “Muslims destroyed New York skyscrapers” (although it would be more correct to say: “Hindus killed Mahatma Gandhi” or “Jews killed Yitzhak Rabin”, although in both cases the nationality of the killers was just that.

The vast majority of people do not know anything about Islam at all, and interest in this religion, for obvious reasons, is recent times is growing rapidly, and the myth of the special militancy, almost even bloodthirstiness of Islam, which supposedly requires its followers to fight ruthlessly against the "infidels", that is, the Gentiles, is spreading more and more widely. All this, of course, is completely wrong. In Islam. As in any great religion, different, not always seemingly compatible values ​​are combined, there is a lot of contradictory. In the Qur'an, if you wish, you can find statements that can be interpreted as militant. For example, many now talk about jihad, interpreting this term as a “holy war against the infidels,” which allegedly gives Muslims the right and even obliges them to fight against the non-Muslim world by all means, up to terror, which can also be justified by the concept of jihad. This is a one-sided and misinterpretation. The American scholar Tomal Lippman noted that the word "jihad" embodies the duty assigned by the Prophet to his followers to defend the faith. In the most general sense, "jihad" means the struggle against evil and the devil, self-discipline (common to all three Abrahamic religions), with the help of which believers strive to follow the will of God, to be better Muslims.

They also talk and write a lot about fundamentalism, erroneously equating this concept with such as radicalism, extremism and even terrorism. Meanwhile, fundamentalism, preaching the need for a ban on the origins of faith, on the original purity of religion, unclouded by later layers, including traditions and interpretations accumulated over centuries, can be inherent in any religion. He was born, by the way, in the United States, in the bosom of Protestantism: in 1919, a group of Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist pastors created the World Christian Fundamentalist Association in order to protect what they called the fundamental provisions of the faith (in particular, they denied Darwin's theory of the origin of man ). Representatives of Islamic fundamentalism (called as-salafiya in Arabic, from the word as-salaf - ancestors) also call for a return to the origins of their religion, by no means meaning violence against non-believers.

Therefore, it is wrong to blame Islam for crimes allegedly committed in the name of this religion. And yet - the fact remains: the most ruthless, massive, "global" acts of terror are committed by people who call themselves Muslims and are justified by the teachings of Islam.

There are three ranges of sentiments (from broader to narrower) that underlie the motivation of modern international terrorists. We are talking about anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments.

Anti-Western sentiments are a direct consequence of the persistence in a new form of the spirit of anti-colonialism that gripped the peoples of Asia and Africa both after the First and especially after the Second World War. It would be wrong to think that anti-colonialism disappeared after the withdrawal of foreign troops and the achievement of national independence. It has evaporated only on a practical level, in business and everyday relationships: the British and French can be quite welcome today in their former colonies. But in the mentality, psyche, ideology, it remains. It is inherent in general to all discriminated and oppressed communities: in countries with more or less pronounced anti-Semitism, for example, a Jew, even if he was rich and famous, and did not encounter open manifestations of anti-Semite phobia, still felt that the “indigenous population” was looking at him from top to bottom, just like in Israel, an Arab, even much more affluent than his Jewish neighbors, and living in a luxurious villa, feels the same way. And his traditional feeling of being "second-class" in the eyes of "whites" - a feeling that inevitably gives rise to an inferiority complex and the accompanying resentment, anger, protest - is typical not only for the inhabitants of the Third World, but also for those Asians and Africans (partly for Latin Americans) who reside in the United States.

And in this sense, we can say that the “wrath of Muslims” is just special case. Quite simply, Muslim society, especially the Arab one, has fared worse in the modern world than others. Nasser's dreams of creating a united great Arab world ("new giant") remained dreams, and although several Arab countries, thanks to oil wealth, managed to break through to prosperity, on the whole, Arab society has the right to experience deep disappointment from the entire post-colonial stage of its development. All secular systems of government, from Western parliamentary democracy to Nasser-Ba'ath "socialism", including military dictatorships, have been tried and failed in terms of overcoming poverty, economic recovery, eradicating or at least reducing corruption, social justice, political efficiency and approval of the Arab world in a worthy place in the modern world order. No wonder that during recent decades voices began to be heard louder and louder, asserting that the root cause of all the troubles of the Arabs was the departure from true, righteous Islam, from the precepts of the Prophet, the desire to slavishly copy the systems created by an alien, non-Muslim civilization, which only led to the deterioration of morals, the decline of traditional values, the growth of self-interest and decomposition of the tops of society, groveling before imperialism. Westernization, the imitation of Western patterns of life, was declared the main evil, the slogan sounded: "Al Islam hua al-hol" ("Islam is the solution").

Accordingly, the West - the same West, which until recently was a direct invader, occupier, colonial master, and for this reason alone could not leave a good memory - has again become an enemy, but in a new sense. In the eyes of all the dissatisfied and disappointed, who definitely want to find an answer - who is to blame for the spread of immorality, corruption, pornography, drug addiction, economic turmoil and the fall in the prestige of the Arab world - the West is the most convenient target.

3. Status and development of the Arab-Israeli dialogue

.1 Positions of the parties on the issue of conflict resolution

Without completely abandoning the Road Map, but at the same time, announcing the absence of a Palestinian partner with whom to conduct constructive negotiations, in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister A. Sharon began to implement a plan for a unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians. Despite the warning of a number of experts, including American ones, that this plan contradicts the Road Map, since it provides for the preservation of Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the river. Jordan, it was fully supported by President George W. Bush and adopted as the "basis" of the "Road Map". Following the United States, the unilateral disengagement plan was approved by all participants in the Middle East Quartet, who at the same time emphasized that they perceive the Sharon plan only as a “zero cycle” of the Road Map, which could lead to a final cessation of the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, and also to assist in the resumption of progress towards a full-scale settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The essence of this approach was most clearly explained in one of her speeches by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “We deeply respect the courageous step that Prime Minister A. Sharon took when he went to the disengagement in Gaza and in the north of the West Bank of the river. Jordan. However, remember that this is only the first step.

It should be noted that political analysts provided two possible scenarios for the development of events after the implementation of the unilateral disengagement plan.

According to the first, more optimistic one, the PNA should have realized the inefficiency of terror, rebuild the economy, and use US assistance to prepare for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

According to the second, pessimistic, immediately after the disengagement, a new round of terror was to begin, which would fall primarily on the Israeli cities bordering the Gaza Strip, as well as the Jewish settlements of Judea and Samaria.

Today, when the active phase of the unilateral disengagement plan with the Palestinians has been completed, and the events of the past two months clearly demonstrate that it is the second scenario that is gradually beginning to unfold in the region, the problem of the prospects for the practical implementation of the Road Map plan seems extremely relevant.

It should be noted that today official Israel continues to demonstrate its commitment to the Road Map. According to A. Sharon's recent statement at a conference in Tel Aviv, the "Road Map" is the only viable plan for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East and "there is no better plan for the future of Israel." The Israeli Prime Minister stressed several times that the disengagement is a one-time event, after which the implementation of the Road Map should immediately begin. At the same time, A. Sharon especially focuses on the fact that it will come into effect only after terror has completely ceased in the region, terrorist organizations have been disarmed, and reforms have been carried out in the territories controlled by the PNA.

As is known, the Road Map provided for the convocation under the auspices of the Quartet after the parliamentary elections in the PNA. international conference on the Middle East settlement, which will launch the process of creating an independent Palestinian state within temporary borders. In this regard, the US administration is carrying out contacts and consultations with the Palestinian leadership, the purpose of which is to proclaim a Palestinian state within temporary borders in accordance with the second stage of the Road Map plan. At the same time, Palestinian sources note, the White House administration sees this temporary state precisely within the borders of the Gaza Strip. As for the West Bank Jordan, at this stage, the American leadership considers this territory "scattered cantons, control over which is the subject of future negotiations."

However, the Palestinian National Authority categorically opposes the proclamation of the "State of Gaza". The Palestinians argue that the second phase of the Roadmap is just an option, not a mandatory item. In their opinion, there is a significant possibility that in the future the temporary borders of the Palestinian state may become permanent. "Most of all, we fear that the Gaza Strip will turn into a huge prison closed to the outside world," Mahmoud Abbas recently said in an interview with the Al-Khalij newspaper, published in the United Arab Emirates.

In order to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state within the provisional borders, the Palestinians are pushing for an immediate transition to final status negotiations, which are part of the third phase of the Roadmap. Thus, during a meeting at the White House between US President George W. Bush and Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Abu Mazen, which took place back in May 2005, the Palestinian leader proposed skipping the second stage of the Road Map implementation and immediately starting negotiations on a permanent status, which should include a final solution to issues related to the borders of a future Palestinian state, the problem of Jerusalem, and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

The Israeli government, for its part, categorically opposes such a scenario, emphasizing that it will not start negotiations on the final status until the PNA leaders can guarantee the security of the Israeli borders and disarm Hamas. This point of view is also shared by the American administration, which, together with the Israeli side, has repeatedly stated that the PNA has not even fulfilled the “precondition” of the Road Map plan, namely, it has not disarmed terrorist groups.

It should be noted that the Palestinian terror, which did not stop after the completion of the unilateral disengagement program, significantly delays the prospects for a further Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement. Thus, the chairman of the All-Israeli headquarters for the fight against terror, reserve general D. Arditi believes that the modern intensification of the terrorist activities of Palestinian militants can lead to a significant escalation of the conflict and completely cross out the chances for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

It should be emphasized that the out-of-control Palestinian militants put Mahmoud Abbas in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, the Palestinian leader needs Israel to make concessions - this would increase his popularity.

On the other hand, any steps taken by the Palestinian authorities against Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which Israel demands from the PNA chairman, will immediately aggravate relations between the Palestinian leadership and the radical Palestinian opposition, which could have the most serious consequences for Abbas.

To date, the resumption of negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides is a first step towards returning the peace process to the rails of the Road Map. However, according to A. Sharon's statement, as long as the terrorist acts continue, holding a Palestinian-Israeli meeting at the highest level remains irrelevant. As a result, the first Palestinian-Israeli summit since the completion of the unilateral disengagement program has been postponed indefinitely three times already.

Moreover, the complexity of the issues that are on the agenda of the future summit indicates that the negotiations will not be without serious difficulties. Thus, the main topics of A. Sharon's meeting with Abu Mazen will be issues related to the continuation of the implementation of the Road Map plan for the Middle East peace settlement and the implementation of the agreements reached in Sharm el-Sheikh. In particular, the Palestinian side insists on including in the agenda of the summit such issues as the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli prisons, the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Arab cities of the West Bank of the river. Jordan as of the end of September 2000 and the complete cessation of the construction of the security fence and barriers in Jewish settlements in the West Bank of the river. Jordan. The PNA also intends to demand additional easing on the regime of movement between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

However, given some statements by the Israeli side, this will not be easy to achieve. First, Israel categorically opposes the release of Palestinian prisoners involved in the killing of Israelis. Secondly, the IDF command opposes the transfer of cities in Judea and Samaria to the control of the PNA, citing the fact that the Palestinian Authority is too helpless to be entrusted with security control in the region. In addition, the Israeli Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that Israel will not agree with the participation of the terrorist organization "Hamas" in the Palestinian government and will demand tougher measures to combat terror from Mahmoud Abbas.

Thus, the prospects for the practical implementation of the "Road Map" plan for the Middle East peace settlement at the moment remain rather illusory. It should be specially emphasized that the degree of distrust between Israel and the PNA is now so high that without any serious participation of the international "quartet" and the provision of real guarantees to the conflicting parties that their interests will be respected, to resume political dialogue and, all the more so, to achieve fundamental shifts on the path to a full-scale Palestinian Israeli peace settlement is not possible.

It must be admitted that today there is no basis in Palestinian-Israeli relations. Moreover, the real conditions in which attempts will be made to implement the road map are characterized by an increased sense of mutual distrust and suspicion of the parties. The discrediting of the Oslo process, the failure of the peace initiatives of the E. Barak administration, the bloody terrorist attacks of the second intifada, the ongoing anti-Israeli propaganda in the Arab countries - all this has led to the fact that, according to polls, the majority of Israelis tend to see the destruction of the Jewish state as the goal of the PNA and the Arab countries of the region, and not the desire to implement the principle of "two states for two peoples." It can be said with certainty that the Palestinians today do not show much confidence in the idea of ​​a peaceful settlement and constructive dialogue with Israel, priority is again given to armed resistance and the tactics of terrorist acts.

Full cooperation and equal involvement of all Quartet members (US, EU, Russia and UN) in the implementation of the initiative are no less controversial. In itself, the idea of ​​a Quartet that would force the United States and the EU to play together on the one hand, and the United Nations and Russia on the other, is quite legitimate and, ideally, could put an end to the history of competing peace plans. However, the experience of previous years shows that such an idyll is practically unattainable due to the different political potential and authority of cosponsors. In fact, the contradictions between the mediators were transferred from the level of discussions in international organizations to the level of disputes within the Quartet, which inevitably leads to an internal imbalance in the mediation mechanism.

Added to this is the lack of a clear EU Middle East policy. Contradictions and conflicts of interest are observed both between the 15 member countries and between the Brussels supranational structures responsible for the sphere of foreign policy. The only component of a common platform that does not cause controversy is the need to form a "counterweight" to American hegemony in the international arena. However, this can hardly be considered sufficient grounds for claims to play an active role in Middle Eastern affairs. It is not entirely clear what European confidence in their own ability to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on, given their modest achievements in this area.

Through the prism of European news reports, official statements by politicians and public figures, and taking into account reports of growing anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe, Israelis tend to see it as a hostile opponent who fully accepted the Palestinian vision of the Middle East conflict, and not a neutral mediator interested solely in achieving peace. The EU policy on financing the PNA is criticized not only by Israel, but also by some EU members, since with significant amounts of financial assistance provided, there are no mechanisms to check what these funds are spent on.

Recently, the problems of the Middle East conflict in general, and the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, in particular, have become the main foreign policy topic for T. Blair and his government. At the same time, the British Foreign Office is making risky maneuvers, balancing between supporting American actions in Iraq, on the one hand, and declaring its desire for a fair resolution of the Palestinian problem, on the other. It is becoming increasingly clear that the right of the Palestinians to establish their own state has become the basis of British policy in the region.

The central element of the road map is the final cessation of Palestinian propaganda of hatred and violence and the establishment of an effective mechanism to prevent terror. It is quite obvious that this requires a radical restructuring of the Palestinian power apparatus, it will be necessary to deprive or limit the powers of a number of high-ranking politicians and the head of the PNA. Success in overcoming all these difficulties will largely depend on the situation in the Middle East as a whole.

Despite the fact that the "road map" raises more questions than it answers, talk about its official presentation, especially from the Europeans, is being conducted more and more actively. The fears boil down to the fact that any delay in the implementation of the intended goals will lead to the erosion of the US position, focused on supporting European steps in the Middle East.

Until recently, the US approach was to limit itself to reaffirming American interest in implementing the initiative jointly with other members of the Quartet, but at the same time postponing its official presentation until after the war in Iraq. However, K. Powell made a statement encouraging for his colleagues in the Quartet, in which he said that the United States considers it necessary to officially submit a "road map" to the conflicting parties with the completion of the formation of the Palestinian government. The Secretary of State also stressed that the text of the initiative will not be subject to significant revision.

But, despite this statement, some changes obviously cannot be avoided. In this regard, the different understanding of the status of the document by Israel and the Quartet attracts attention. The latter believes that the time to discuss the wording of the initiative is over and the time has come for their implementation. Israel expects to be given the opportunity to make its own amendments. Europeans accuse Israel that all its proposals to revise certain provisions of the initiative and introduce amendments are nothing more than a political game aimed at dragging out time in the hope that the plan will lose its relevance in the rapidly changing reality of the region and will be removed from the agenda. Israel, for its part, states that the amendments concern only fundamental issues related to the security sphere, and should be seen as an attempt at a constructive dialogue:

Israel pushes for a change in Palestinian leadership

A Palestinian state can be proclaimed only as a result of bilateral negotiations with Israel and after the conclusion of an appropriate agreement.

A detailed formulation of the Palestinian security obligations is needed, including the arrest, investigation and trial of suspected terrorists.

A Palestinian state can be proclaimed only after the final elimination of the terrorist infrastructure.

Guarantees are needed for the freedom of the IDF to carry out anti-terrorist operations in the territory under Palestinian control.

Israel would agree to a settlement freeze only on the condition of genuine peace and would not liquidate settlements in the interim.

The Palestinian authorities must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Thus, before the first official visit of Israel's Foreign Minister S. Shalom to the United States, there was a belief that the "road map" is a basis for discussion, and not a ready-made document. There was a certainty that a preliminary bilateral discussion of the initiative with the Americans would take place, mutual consultations would be held, during which an agreed version would be worked out, and only then would the publication and implementation of the initiative become a reality. The results of S. Shalom's visit turned out to be a surprise in many respects and revealed a disappointing reality.

It became clear that the Bush administration sees the war in Iraq as a kind of test of the strength of its position as a world superpower capable of carrying out its will without regard to other members of the international community. The goal of the American campaign is not only to change the regime in Iraq, but also to change the political reality in the Middle East as a whole. And Israel will have to fit into this new reality, adjusting its attitudes, possibly breaking traditional ideas and destroying stereotypes, which is unlikely to be painless. The second revelation was the US plans to formally present the road map to the parties within the next two weeks, with the expectation that they will have no more than two to three weeks to determine and state their position. After these "protocol" procedures, the United States will expect the real implementation of the peace initiative to begin, moreover, in compliance with the established deadlines. In the context of the ongoing events, is it necessary to say what a deliberate delay in the implementation of the deadlines or failure to fulfill the obligations assumed can lead to?

If the positions of the Europeans are inherently controversial, then no more so than the positions of the Palestinians themselves, since the new Palestinian head of government, Abu Mazen, is making every effort to delay the official presentation of the road map. Abu Mazen is afraid of receiving an immediate invitation to Washington for consultations on the implementation of the plan, and this, during the hostilities taking place in Iraq, can be assessed in the Arab world as aiding the American aggressor. For the same reason, Abu Mazen preferred to refuse official American congratulations on taking office and hints in every possible way that the invitation to Washington is undesirable, which the Europeans especially insist on, believing that this will increase the prestige and authority of the new prime minister in the eyes of the Palestinians and will help him to form the image of a political leader international class as well as to present it to the international public.

While there is active discussion about the timing of the publication of the initiative, I would like to recall that, as experience shows and as was the case with the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Plan, the publication of a peace initiative in itself does not necessarily lead to an immediate end to the confrontation and the start of negotiations between parties. The success or failure of the "road map" depends solely on the will of the direct participants in the conflict, their readiness to implement the agreements reached and renounce violence. This condition remains valid.

Now most analysts agree that the road map is already part of the history of Middle East peacekeeping, rich in a variety of peace plans and initiatives.

Thus, the next plan for the Palestinian-Israeli settlement was developed by an initiative group of functionaries of the Israeli governments of different years, headed by the former Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin, on the one hand, and Palestinian officials of various levels, headed by the former Minister of Information of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Abed Rabbo. The development of the document, called the "Geneva Initiative", was carried out for about two years, after which a ceremony was held in Jordan that marked the end of preparatory phase.

The new initiative, both in terms of its history of creation, and in terms of the wording in the text, and in terms of the style of presentation, very much resembles another one that appeared in 1992-1993, when the Israeli society was also confronted with the fact that secret negotiations with the Palestinians took place in Oslo and achieved there agreements. Then Yossi Beilin served as Deputy Foreign Minister in the government of Yitzhak Rabin, which, however, did not prevent him from exceeding his authority and sending emissaries to negotiate with the PLO without Rabin's consent. When intelligence informed the prime minister of these contacts, he was surprised and angry, as at the same time, and on his behalf, Elyakim Rubinstein conducted official negotiations with the Palestinians in Washington. The end of this story is well known: Beilin, with the support of Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, succeeded in persuading Rabin to sign the now discredited Oslo Accords.

2 Prospects for constructive dialogue to prevent escalation of tension and resolve the conflict

A peaceful settlement of the conflict can be achieved, Dmitriev E. believes. He writes about this that as a result of the war of the United States against Iraq and the occupation of the territory of this country by the troops of the US-British coalition and their allies, a significant new extension of the American zone Russian military presence in the Middle East. Now this zone stretches from the borders of Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, the Caucasus-Persian Gulf to the borders of Syria. In military-strategic terms, a number of Arab states of the Middle East - Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - found themselves, as it were, in the grip of two strategic allies - the United States. Comrade and Israel: in the south - with a hundred the crowns of the American army occupying Iraq and controlling the Persian Gulf.

What are the prospects for a political settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the light of the new geopolitical situation in the Middle East region, according to E. Dmitriev. In Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Mahmoud Abbas /Abu Mazen/, then Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in the presence of representatives of the cosponsors of the Madrid Conference, the United States and Russia, signed the joint local document: "Declaration of Principles on Provisional Arrangements for the Organization of Self-Government", referred to above.

Further Palestinian-Israeli negotiations thieves and signing a number so on called intermediates agreements (Cairo - 1994, Taba -1995, etc.) should have lead to a transitional conclusion period (by April 1999) and the achievement of a mutual agreement final retirement tus of Palestinian statehood.

However, by this date, the parties failed to reach such an agreement, the negotiations were interrupted due to disagreements on a number of fundamental issues: the territorial delimitation between Israel and the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Jewish settlements, the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. At the end of April 1999, the Palestinian leadership, taking into account the parliamentary elections in Israel in May 1999, as well as the opinion of the co-sponsors of the peace process in the Middle East - the United States and Russia, decided to postpone the proclamation of the Palestinian sky state for a later period.

In June 1999, as a result of parliamentary elections in Israel, the government of Ehud Barak came to power, which managed to somewhat revive the deadlocked peace process. A little later, on September 5, 1999, in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh, signed Palestinian-Israeli Memorandum on a phased creation of obligations of the parties under previously signed ones, but not you complete agreements, as well as about the resumption of negotiations on the final status of the Palestinian territories. Such negotiations were indeed resumed at the meeting of E. Barak and Y. Arafat, which took place on the initiative and patronage of the American President Clinton in July 2000 at Camp David. When discussing at this meeting the problem of the "final status" of the Palestinian territories, the government of E. Barak agreed with the transfer of up to 90% of the territory to the control of the future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while maintaining Israel Lem large Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

During the Palestinian-Israeli talks at Camp David, there has also been some progress towards rapprochement of the positions of the parties on issues of the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements. But nevertheless, finally, the disagreements between the representatives of Israel and the PLO at these negotiations, first of all, regarding the scheme of territorial division between Israel and the Palestinians and with respect to Jerusalem, then the actions of the opponents could not be overcome. for a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially among the Israeli settlers. The latter accused the government of E. Barak of allegedly too large "concessions" from Israel to the Palestinians. At the same time, the protests of the Arab population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip against the continued Israeli occupation multiplied. Moreover, these speeches were often accompanied by acts of violence: shelling of Jewish settlements, explosions in places of concentration niya people and other actions, committed for the most part militants from radical Islamic groups extra mystical - Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The intensity of passions increased even more after an unexpected march on September 28, 2001 by a group of deputies of the Israeli parliament from the opposition parties of the right-wing Likud bloc, led by General A. Sharon, to the Temple Mount located in the Arab eastern part of Jerusalem, within the limits of the shrine of all Muslims - the Al Mosque - Aksa. Muslims throughout the Arab and Islamic world regarded this move as direct - a blow to religious feelings, as a provocation aimed at undermining the peace process, in order to prevent the creation of a new Palestinian state. state with Jerusalem as its capital. The very next day - September 29, 2001 - the indignation of Muslims who came to Friday prayer at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, turned into a spontaneous uprising, soon spreading necking all over the territory Riya Palestine Av tonomy. started but new round of the Palestinian intifada, known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

In February 2001, in an extremely electrifying situation associated with the uprising of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, snap elections to the Knesset (parliament) were held in Israel. They brought victory to the Likud bloc. On February 26, 2001, the leader of this bloc, Ariel Sharon, was elected the new prime minister of Israel.

From now on I dominate Armed confrontation has again become a common feature in the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis. All of Palestine, including the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, was swept by a wave of violence and bloodshed. Moreover, if the acts of violence on the part of the Palestinians - explosions on military and civilian facilities, attacks on Jewish settlers, etc. were in most cases the work of individual supporters of the Hamas movement and Islamic Jihad, not controlled by the authorities of the Palestinian Authority, then with a hundred On the Israeli side, they were in the nature of armed operations of the Israeli army and police authorized and planned by the Israeli government, aimed at destroying not only individual leaders of extremist groups, but also official institutions and figures of the administration of the Palestinian Authority.

This is evidenced by such facts as the practice of periodic incursions of the Israeli army into the territory of the Autonomy under the pretext of the need to destroy "terrorists", for example, the occupation in April 2001 of part of the territory of the Gaza Strip in the areas of the cities of Rafah and Khan Yunis, where the camps of Palestinian refugees and subsequent repeated incursions by the Israeli army into these areas in 2003-2005, destruction by Israeli aircraft international airport and the seaport in Gaza, shelling of houses and other civilian facilities in Gaza and in cities in the West Bank - Jenin, Ramallah, the capture of Palestinian police checkpoints, the blockade of the headquarters of the head of the Palestinian Autonomy, Yasser Aafat in Ramallah, the prohibition of the movement of Palestinians from the territory of the Autonomy to Izra il, so-called construction my "barrier wall" separating part of the occupied territory of Autonomy - the West Bank and Gaza from Israel. The culmination of the armed confrontation between the Israelis and the Palestinians in 2002-2003, when suicide attacks by suicide bombers from the Islamic organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, on the one hand, and the so-called "retaliatory actions" of the Israeli army, on the other, became especially frequent and violent. character. At the same time, the main victims of the confrontation were the civilian population.

As reported in a note dated August 4, 2003, by the Permanent Representative of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the UN addressed to the Secretary-General, more than 2,800 Palestinians and more than 800 Israelis were killed and thousands of people were injured between September 2000 and July 2006 alone. “Most of the victims in Israel were caused by terrorist attacks on Israelis by various Palestinian terrorist groups". At the same time, a large number of Palestinian civilian casualties settlements was the result of Israeli military operations, including pre-emptive strikes and the practice of targeted killings of persons suspected of terrorist activities in Palestinian areas.” In a number of Palestinian cities, entire residential areas were destroyed as a result of clashes between the Israeli army and Palestinian militants. The city of Rafah in the south of the Gaza Strip was particularly affected. During the incursion of the Israeli army into the area of ​​Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya in the part of the Gaza Strip in May-June 2003, more than a thousand dunams of agricultural farmland and houses and infrastructure were destroyed or damaged.

According to the Israeli intelligence services, 1,034 Israelis and ca and about 5600 people received whether injured. The Palestinians carried out 138 suicide attacks, eight of which were committed by women. At the same time, according to Noam Hofsteter, spokesman for the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, 3,160 Palestinians have died over the years. In addition, the Israeli army destroyed more than 4,800 Palestinian homes.

So what do we have today. Many ways out of the conflict were proposed by the UN, members of the "quartet": the famous, but ineffectual resolutions No. 242, 338, 1397, 1515; the principle of "land in exchange for peace"; the Roadmap - in fact, exist only on paper. Each new series of peace talks was interrupted by yet another terrorist attacks, explosions, rocket attacks, and provocations. In fact, all the efforts and achievements of the UN were nullified by the aggressive actions of the Palestinians and Israelis. It turns out a "vicious circle". Is there a way out of this circle?

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be viewed in the short and long term.

The main task to be solved in the near future is to "seat" the parties to the negotiating table. To do this, it is necessary to persuade or force Israel to limit settlement construction in the occupied territories, since this is the main obstacle in the establishment of relations, and, I emphasize, an obstacle not to reach a compromise, but only to resume the negotiation process as such.

If we consider the issue in the long term, then here we are talking about ways to finally resolve the conflict. And here I cannot agree with the opinion of Vitaliy Naumkin, a well-known Russian scientist: “Today it is time to quickly recognize the existence of a Palestinian state, with temporary borders for a transitional period…”. The scientist believes that such a measure would stop the path to the creation of new settlements. However, I believe that, firstly, Mahmoud Abbas will not agree to such an option, and, secondly, the implementation of such a plan threatens to further delay the negotiation process, because the key issue of borders, the eternal "stumbling block", remains unresolved. And I strongly doubt that settlement construction will be stopped: now the scale of construction is only growing, despite the condemnation of Israeli policy by the entire world community, including the United States.

I see the following compromise option: it is obvious that concessions will have to be made by both sides.

The most painful issue is the issue of the status of the city of Jerusalem. Its unresolved nature makes the negotiations on the remaining controversial points meaningless. But if the Palestinians claim only East Jerusalem, then the Israeli government considers Jerusalem as a whole "as the eternal and indivisible capital" of Israel, so the issue of East Jerusalem is taken out of the scope of negotiations. Then what kind of Palestinian state can we talk about if the entire Islamic world, even if only due to religious ideas and values, cannot give Jerusalem to the Jews? Plans have long been made for the division of Jerusalem. The most realistic of them, in my opinion, is a plan according to which East Jerusalem will become the capital of the future Palestinian state, West - the state of Israel, and the territory in the ancient part of the city, where the shrines of three world religions are located, should be given a special status that already exists behind the scenes (“City of Peace”) and placed under the control of the international community. I think it is obvious to everyone that the ancient city will have to be divided, which means that Israel will have to give in on this issue.

As for the “eternal” demand of the Palestinians for the return of refugees who left the territory occupied by Israel, on this issue I agree with the point of view of Vitaly Naumkin, who noted that “here the Arabs will have to make concessions.” The Israeli leadership does not want to accept refugees, and the Israelis can be understood. The status of "Palestinian refugee" is hereditary. It is worth considering this fact and the fact that more than 60 years have passed since the adoption of UNGA resolution No. 194 (III), calling for the return of refugees. Clearly, the number of refugees has increased exponentially: there are currently about 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN, and Israel's population is 7.933 million as of September 2012. Israel, accepting refugees, will turn into an Arab state. In addition, the refugees themselves grew up in special camps and were brought up in a spirit of hatred towards Jews. Therefore, the fears of the Jews and the demands of the Israeli government to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" are quite logical and justified. So, the refugee problem must be solved in favor of Israel.

No less controversial is the problem of borders: the Palestinians demand a return to the borders that existed before the 1967 war, referring to UN resolution No. 242, and consider it possible to transfer no more than 4% of the territory of the West Bank of the Jordan River (WBRI) to the Israelis. Israel, on the other hand, demands to annex to itself all the territories on which Jewish settlements are built - and this is more than 6% of its territory, and also wants to retain control over the Jordan Valley, along which the border of the ZBRI with Jordan passes. How to regard the condition of Israel? I believe this paragraph is a direct violation of the sovereignty of a state that has not yet been created. The parties should agree on the figure - 6%, in favor of Israel. However, if we are talking about the creation of an independent Palestinian state, then it is logical and fair, in my opinion, to make the control and protection of future territorial borders the prerogative of the Palestinian administration.

No less important is the condition for achieving "inter-Palestinian agreement". In fact, today Palestine is still divided into supporters, if not opposing, then having ideological differences, political forces - Fatah and Hamas. Yes, in May 2011 in Cairo, these Palestinian movements "agreed" on reconciliation. However, the agreement was halted due to disagreements over the formation of the PNA cabinet. In January of this year, Fatah and Hamas agreed to unfreeze the process of inter-Palestinian reconciliation. Steps are being taken towards achieving internal political unity in Palestine. Otherwise, with whom is Israel to negotiate? With Mahmoud Abbas, and the area of ​​the Gaza Strip should be ignored? So, the solution of domestic political problems is the primary task of the Palestinians. But, there is also the other side of the coin - the reaction of Israel, which is clearly illustrated by Benjamin Netanyahu's statement made in April 2011: "Mahmoud Abbas must choose - peace with Israel or peace with Hamas", which is easily explained. What is the Hamas movement? This is a fundamentalist Islamic movement, recognized as terrorist by most countries, including Israel. This is a movement that has not yet recognized the State of Israel, which not only does not seek peace with Israel, but proclaims its task to be the fight against Israel. Vitaly Naumkin believes that "this movement should be recognized as a legal political force." I believe that this is impossible until Hamas reconsiders its ideology and refuses to fight against Israel.

Thus, there are many controversial, controversial issues. Still, I don't think the situation is hopeless. If the parties agree to make mutual concessions, if they pursue a more flexible policy towards each other, then peace is possible. At the moment, based on all of the above, I can conclude that a tougher, uncompromising position has been taken by Israel, which, instead of taking steps towards peace, is only adding fuel to the fire. And I mean not only active settlement construction. To give a few examples: On February 24, 2010, the Israeli Prime Minister announced the inclusion of two holy sites located on the West Bank of the Jordan River in the list of heritage sites of the Jewish people; On 14 April 2010, a law was passed that would allow troops occupying the West Bank to evict Palestinians from the West Bank without recourse to a civil court; On May 4, 2011, information appeared that the Israeli government had refrained from transferring $100 million in taxes to the Palestinians. In addition, according to the estimates of the human rights organization Shalom Ahshav, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories reached a record high in 2012. These and other points complicate an already complicated negotiation process.

How to incline the parties to peace? What can force Israel to make concessions? Of course, the strength of US-Israeli relations directly affects the course of the negotiation process. US Deputy Secretary of State for the Middle East Harold Saunders said in an interview with RIA Novosti: “The American side has long had interests related to the Middle East ... We used to be very interested in oil from Arab countries, but at the same time we have strong relations with Israel, and these interests conflict with each other. Peace in the Middle East is important to the US because it reduces the potential threat of unrest that threatens US interests…” Harold Saunders does not doubt the success of the United States as a mediator, since "no other country has such close relations with Israel ...". However, in modern conditions, this active intermediary activity does not bring positive results. We all remember the already famous "Middle East speech" by US President Barack Obama (May 2011), in which he proposed a basis for future negotiations: "The United States is confident that the negotiations should end with the implementation of the principle of two states with the creation of permanent borders along the lines of 1967 ..." . One could consider this statement an incredible breakthrough, but Obama noted in his conclusion that "the United States stands for a demilitarized Palestinian state, since the Jewish state must be provided with security ...". The demilitarization clause again limits the sovereignty of the Palestinian state. This speech vividly reflects the inconsistency of US policy in the Middle East, which is forced to maneuver between the interests of Israel and the interests of the Arabs. On one side of the scale is the pro-Israeli lobby, whose support cannot be lost, because it is a significant part of the US electorate, on the other hand, American interests in the Middle East, which are more difficult to ensure against the backdrop of the Arab revolutions, and every step in support of the Israelis can further antagonize the Arab world . Today, judging by the “success” of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, the priority task for the United States is to provide support for the pro-Israeli lobby. That is why the current American administration, condemning Israeli settlement construction, blocks the relevant UN resolutions, and on the eve of Mahmoud Abbas's application to the UN for membership in the organization, Obama warned more than once that he would certainly use the right of veto if necessary. As for the fact that Palestine, by decision of the UN Security Council, received the status of an observer state in the UN, in the United States it is perceived as a counterproductive measure: in order to gain statehood, the Palestinians first need to achieve agreement in negotiations with Israel.

The Middle East problem is complex, multifaceted and needs to be resolved as soon as possible, since the prolongation of the conflict only adds new contentious issues, which are already in short supply. Settlement construction is expanding, and hence the territories that Israel will seek to secure. The only thing that can move the solution of the problem off the ground and start the peace negotiation process again is a change in US policy in the Middle East: verbal demonstrations of support for the Palestinians and condemnation of the actions of the Israeli leadership must be accompanied by real measures of pressure on Israel, which the entire Arab world is waiting for.

Conclusion

Ethnic conflicts are one of the oldest forms of social interaction, the motivational side of which is somehow colored by ethnic feelings, affecting the deep structures of the human personality. Ethnic conflicts become especially acute when they are caused by territorial claims.

A significant part of the conceptual structures of the nature of ethnic conflict consider power and politics as potential or actual components of conflict relations. This is no coincidence. An ethno-political conflict is a certain type, or rather, a certain stage in the development of an ethnic conflict, at which it acquires a political direction and organization. The political in an ethnic conflict means the transition of conflict relations to a more high level complexity, which is associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at the redistribution of power.

The conducted research confirms that one can speak of an ethno-political conflict when the parties to the conflict, divided along ethnic lines, have a political leadership that pursues certain goals and objectives of a political nature. Both logic and practice show that most inter-ethnic conflicts take on this form over time.

The beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict in modern history was UN Resolution 181 (II) on the formation of an Israeli state on the lands of Palestine inhabited by Arabs.

An analysis of the recommendations set forth in this document shows that the positions and interests of one of the parties to the potential conflict were not taken into account when it was adopted. All Arab countries and the Supreme Arab Committee of Palestine rejected the decision to organize a Jewish state on the territory of Palestine. And this meant that UN Resolution 181 (II) itself already contained a conflict basis, which was confirmed by subsequent events. The experience of conflict situations convinces us that a decision is considered correct only if its mechanism is not only institutionalized, but has social status allowing to influence social processes. And this requires a common understanding of the very structure of the definition of an acceptable solution.

The logic of conflict relations dictates the inevitable consequences: ignoring the interests of one of the parties creates problems for the other. The New State of Israel was surrounded by hostile Arab countries, which were not slow to declare war on the new state, deciding to correct the situation by force.

The subsequent decades of war, terror, intifada repeatedly forced the leaders of the conflicting parties to sit down at the negotiating table and resolve mutual claims peacefully. But the incompatible interests and contradictions of the parties again led to war and terror. Today it is impossible to offer an unambiguous recipe for a solution to the conflict that is satisfactory for both sides. Only one thing is clear: in any case, both peoples will always live in the long-suffering land of Palestine. Neither expel nor destroy each other, they are not able to.

The analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict carried out in the work places certain hopes on the factors for achieving peace and harmony in the region. The spontaneous development of events is not able to overcome the age-old claims and mistrust of Arabs and Jews towards each other. In the near future, a relatively peaceful coexistence of two states on the land of Palestine is possible with a constructive influence on the development of events on the part of the world community. France sees the only solution to the crisis in the direction of the Middle East international forces to separate the opposing sides. The issue of their deployment in the conflict zone was discussed by the leadership of Saudi Arabia. The demarche of Paris was highly appreciated by the Arabs. However, Israel until recently categorically rejected the possibility of "internationalization of the crisis."

The peacekeeping efforts of major international powers are undoubtedly a real factor in the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, the influence of this factor is far from clear. Each country interested in resolving the conflict in the Middle East is interested in it in its own way. An authoritative international organization such as the UN could truly rise above the selfishness of private interests, but, unfortunately, its possibilities are limited. They are limited both in terms of resources and in terms of political independence and freedom by certain centers of influence and power.

Mankind has entered the 21st century with an understanding of the fundamental impossibility of getting rid of conflicts, which pushes sovereign states to build their policies on the priority of national interests and the creation of appropriate resources. However, the militarization of the national economy, as history testifies, does not bring anything positive to human existence, on the contrary, it brings impoverishment, primitiveness to him, deprives him of the joy of existence and saps his mental potential. Therefore, the concept of military superiority in conflicts cannot objectively become a symbol of the prosperity of mankind, because it potentially brings about the extinction of the human race.

The course of the process of the Middle East settlement shows that the positions of the main political groups participating in this process were strongly influenced by internal political events in Israel and Palestine, along with other factors, in particular foreign policy and economic. This had a strong impact on the preparation of the negotiation process, as well as on the positions of the Palestinian and Israeli sides during the negotiations and the subsequent course of the peace process.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a clash of two territorial entities, ethnic communities for the right to create their own monocultural country and its universal recognition. Taking into account the contradictions that have arisen historically, three forms of relations between the parties to the conflict can be distinguished: a strong peace, an open large-scale war, an intermediate state characterized by outbreaks of struggle and short-term attempts to bring the warring parties closer to resolve differences.

An open large-scale war involving a significant number of forces from both sides, aimed at the final resolution of contradictions, is a theoretically possible phenomenon, but in practice such an outcome of events seems unlikely. Firstly, because in addition to the direct participants, other countries are also involved in the sphere of confrontation, both occupying the border area and located at a considerable distance from it. Secondly, at present, for an open large-scale action against Israel, the Palestinian Authority does not have a sufficient degree of consolidation of forces. Thirdly, the very goal of a final resolution of contradictions looks unattainable.

The second theoretically possible option for resolving the conflict is the creation of a strong peace, which is significantly hampered by the unwillingness of the Arab political elite to compromise in any form. In such situations, the conclusion of peace for a long time is achieved either by the complete exhaustion of the forces of both sides, which, with the modern international one, incl. the financial support of both countries seems unlikely, or the destruction of one of the participants in the conflict, which again is impossible in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons.

The Palestinians and Israelis are doomed to live on the same land, but they must divide the territory, which will require a series of concessions and compromises. The Road Map documents, the Oslo Accords, the Declaration of Principles by Sari Nusseiba and Ami Ayalon, the Geneva Agreement have a number of significant shortcomings and do not solve four key problems: the dispute over territories; the future of Jewish settlements (largely a consequence of the issue of territories); the fate of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants; the question of the religious shrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, incl. the question of the status of Jerusalem. Currently, there is a transformation of the ideological conflict between the "secular nationalists" from Fatah and the "Islamic radicals" from Hamas into an armed confrontation between various tribalist, communal-clan and religious-sectarian groups that make up the local Arab-Palestinian society. The experiment of rapidly consolidating these groups of diverse origins into something remotely resembling a single community has failed, there is no "Palestinian nation". This implies the impossibility of the emergence in the Palestinian territories in the foreseeable future of a relatively stable regime with which it would be possible to conduct a dialogue according to the “peace in exchange for territories” scheme, and Israel is unlikely to be able to separate from the Palestinian Arabs in one form or another.

Palestinian-Israeli relations are doomed to exist between strong peace and open large-scale war. And in this regard, the Russian Federation should play an increasingly active role in the Quartet, which includes the United States, the United Nations and the European Union and was created to resolve this particular conflict. Achieving the stated goal is in Russia's national interests.

Bibliography

1. Middle East policy of the great powers and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 2 volumes / Under the general. ed. O.A. Kolobov. - T.2. The documents. Nizhny Novgorod: ISI UNN, 2008. - 264 p.

Middle East conflict, 1947-1967: From the documents of the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation: In 2 volumes / Intern. Fund "Democracy"; Rep. ed. Naumkin V.V. - M.: Mainland, 2003. - T. 2: 1957-1967. - 701 p.

Zaichik M. 6 days and years (6 days of June 1967): [From the life of Levi Eshkol, Prime Minister of Israel in 1963-1969]. - M.: Parallels: House of Jewish Books, 2005.-214c.

Kolobov O.A., Kornilov A.A., Sergunin A.A. A Documentary History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Reader. - Nizhny Novgorod: UNN, 1991. -310 p.

Kuznetsov D. Arab-Israeli conflict: History and modernity. Essay on events. Documents and materials. - Blagoveshchensk: Publishing house of BSPU, 2006.-285 p.

Olimpiyev A. Arab-Israeli war of 1967: Six-day war through the eyes of eyewitnesses // Obozrevatel. - 2003. - No. 10. - S. 88-91.

Cherkashin N. He was supposed to destroy Israel // Motherland. - 1996. - No. 7/8. - S. 112-114.

Churchill W. Six Day War. - Jerusalem; Moscow: Gesharim: Bridges of Culture, 2003. - 315 p.

Chuvakhin D.S. Notes of the Soviet Ambassador to Israel. 1964-1967 // New and recent history. - 1996. - No. 5. - S. 151-174.

Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: new methods and techniques for preventing and resolving conflicts. - M.: Eksmo, 2009. - 512 p.

Arab-Israeli wars. - M.: SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2004. - 509 p.

Arab-Israeli conflict: old problems and new plans. - M.: Institute for the Study of Israel and the Middle. East, 2003. - 59 p.

Baklanov A. Middle East peace process: how to restore momentum? // Asia and Africa today. - 2006. - No. 6. - S. 32-42.

Belenkaya M. Middle East: big politics of the G8 // Asia and Africa today. - 2006. - No. 6. - S. 43-47.

Middle East policy of the great powers and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 2 vols. / Under the total. ed. O.A. Kolobov. - T.1. Regularities and features. - Nizhny Novgorod: ISI UNN, 2008.

Middle East: problems of regional security. - M.: SSC RF "NIOPIK", 2000. - 207 p.

Brutents K. The decline of American hegemony. - M.: International relations, 2010. - 512 p.

Vavilov A. The Middle East in Russian politics // Russia and the Muslim world. - 1995. - No. 12. - S. 84-91.

Vlasova Yu. International and regional problems of the modern Arab world // Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Political science. - 2009. - No. 3. - S. 25-34.

Gasratyan S. History and Ideology of the Jewish Religious Movement of the 19th-20th Centuries: From the History of the State of Israel. - M.: IV RAN, 1999. - 237 p.

Daduani A. Democracy and the United Nations. - M.: Modern Economics and Law, 2007. - 289 p.

Dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Proceedings of a scientific conference / Ed. coll.: O.A. Kolobov (responsible editor) and others - Nizhny Novgorod: UNN, 1991. - 133 p.

Egorin A. War for the Middle East Peace. - M.: Publishing company "Eastern Literature" RAS, 1998. - 168 p.

Zyabkin A. The United Nations (UN) is a universal international organization of general competence: Proc. allowance. - St. Petersburg: Knowledge, 2008. - 439 p.

Origins and history of the Palestine problem, 1917-1947 / United Nations. - New York: UN, 1978. - 244 p.

Kapustin A. The United Nations and the international legal basis for maintaining international peace and security (To the 60th anniversary of the UN) // International law. - 2005. - No. 3 (23). - C. 5-30.

Kolobov O.A. Arab-Israeli conflict and American-Israeli "strategic cooperation" in historical retrospective // ​​Bulletin of UNN. Series. International relationships. Political science. Regional studies. - 2006. - Issue. fourteen). - S. 3-11.

Kolobov O.A. United States of America and the problem of Palestine. - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod State. un-ta, 1993. - 223 p.

Kolobov A.O., Kolobov O.A., Zhukarin R.Yu., Khokhlysheva O.O. Arab-Israeli conflict and the new Middle East policy of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. - 2007. - No. 2. - S. 258-264.

Kosach G., Melkumyan E. The Middle East in Russian Foreign Policy // Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. - 2002. - No. 9. - S. 38-47.

Kudryavtsev I. Islamic world and the Palestinian problem. - M.: Nauka, 1990. - 132 p.

Laverov N., Evseev V. Discussion of the problems of the Middle East settlement // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - 2010. - T.80. - No. 7. - S. 642-644.

Mamkulova A. UN peacekeeping activities in modern conditions // Bulletin of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University. - 2010. - V.10. - No. 1. - S. 36-41.

Routes of the Roadmap. Palestinian-Israeli conflict // Asia and Africa today. - 2003. - No. 12. - S. 2-7.

Medvedko L. The Middle East: the longest "conflict of the century" // Questions of history. - 1988. - No. 6. - S. 131-145.

Mirsky G. After Arafat // Russia in Global Affairs. - 2004. - Vol. 2. - No. 6. - S. 17-26.

Mokhova I., Tkachenko A., Petrov N. Great Near and Middle East // Asia and Africa today. - 2007. - No. 12. - S. 11-23.

Nikitin A.I. International conflicts and their settlement // Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. - 2006. - No. 2. - S. 3-16.

Pelipas M.Ya. Chained: The US and Britain in the Near and Middle East 1945-1956. - Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 2003. - 364 p.

Podtserob A. Arab countries in the system of international relations // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 25: International Relations and World Politics. - 2011. - No. 1. - S. 76-97.

Primakov E. The problem of Palestine in the 20th century: origins, evolution, prospects // Palestine collection. - Issue. 27 (90). - L., 1981. - S. 3-22.

Pyrlin E.D. 100 years of confrontation. Genesis, evolution, current state and prospects for solving the Palestinian problem. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2001. - 480 p.

Russia and Arab countries: new realities of economic cooperation // Internationale politik. - 2007. - No. 1. - S. 79.

Sredin V. Russia in the Middle East // // International life. - 2000. - No. 3. - S. 83-88.

Tuganova O.E. International Relations in the Near and Middle East. - M.: International relations, 1967. - 296 p.

Fedorov V. The United Nations, other international organizations and their role in the XXI century. - M.: Logos, 2005. - 940 p.

Khazanov A. Middle East: Challenges of the 21st Century // Vostok. Afro-Asian societies: history and modernity. - 2011. - No. 6. - S. 182-184.

Khazanov M. UN and the Middle East Crisis. - M.: International relations, 1983. - 174 p.

Khokhlysheva O.O. Armed conflicts and the possibilities of their settlement in the conditions of global interdependence of states and peoples // Nizhny Novgorod journal international studies. - 2006. - Autumn. - S. 76-86.

Shumikhin A. USA and the Middle East: the evolution of views and politics // USA: Economy, politics, ideology. - 1997. - No. 4. - S. 35-46.

Yagudin B.M., Suleimanov R.R. Arab-Israeli conflict and the role of Russia in its settlement // Bulletin of MGIMO University. - 2010. - No. 5. - S. 337-340.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

History of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

In order to understand why the conflict between Israel and Palestine arose, first of all, consider its background. Palestine is a territory located near the Mediterranean Sea in the Middle East. The history of this small piece of land has a long history. The roots of the current conflict between Israel and Palestine lie in the past in the territorial-ethnic struggle between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jews. But, it must be said that such a tense situation between the two peoples was not always.

For a long time, Arabs and Jews lived peacefully as neighbors in Palestine. Palestine during the reign of the Ottoman Empire was considered part of Syria. The population at that time in Palestine was predominantly Arab. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Jewish settlements began to appear in Palestine, and mainly around the city of Jerusalem. But it must be admitted that the colonization of Palestine by the Jews was very slow. According to statistics in 1918, the population of Palestine were Arabs, with a total number of 93%. The picture began to change dramatically when, after the First World War, Britain received the right to rule Palestine. This mandate came into force in 1923 in September.

Widespread propaganda began on the settlement and colonization of Palestine by Jews. This idea was put forward in 1917 by British Foreign Minister A. Balfour, writing a letter to the leader of the Zionists. The letter announced the establishment of a national home for the Jews. The letter later became known as the Balfour Declaration.

At the beginning of the 20th century in the 20s, the Haganah military organization was created, and already in 1935, the extremist organization Irgun zvai Leumi was created by Jews. True, it should be noted that at first the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine proceeded peacefully.

After the Nazis came to power, the World War began, the emigration of Jews to Palestine increased dramatically. So in 1932 there were 184 thousand Jews in Palestine, in 1938 there were already 414 thousand people, and by the end of 1947 there were more than 600 thousand Jews, that is, at that time a third of the population of Palestine. The ultimate goal of Jewish emigration to Israel is said by many to be the conquest of Palestinian lands and the creation of a Jewish state. The idea of ​​creating the state of Israel goes back to the distant past, but only after the Second World War did this idea become possible. The idea of ​​creating a Jewish state was supported by the world community, big role the Holocaust played a role in strengthening this idea. In November 1945, the situation in Palestine was tense to the limit. The conflict between Palestine and Israel was brewing.

In addition to the fact that Palestine was shaken by clashes between Arabs and Jews, the movement of Zionist terror, which was directed against the British authorities, intensified during this period. Great Britain could not solve this problem on its own and submitted a solution to the future of Palestine in 1947 for consideration at the session of the UN General Assembly.

At that time, there were two solutions for the future of Palestine. A special committee on Palestine affairs was created at the UN, which, consisting of 11 people, signed a letter recommending the creation of two independent independent states: Hebrew and Arabic. And leave between them an international zone - the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was to receive international status. The plan for the partition of Palestine was discussed for a long time and in November 1947 was approved. The United States and the USSR were among the countries that recognized and approved this division into Palestine and Israel.

According to resolution No. 181/11 of November 29, 1947, Palestine was divided into two independent states - Jewish with a territory of 14.1 thousand square kilometers, which is 56% of the entire area of ​​Palestine and Arab, with an area of ​​11.1 square kilometers, which is 43% of the area of ​​the entire territory of Palestine, and Jerusalem - the international zone - 1% of the total territory.

Until August 1, 1948, British troops were to be withdrawn from the country. As soon as the decision to create an independent Jewish state of Israel was proclaimed, the Zionists began a real undeclared war. And even before the official declaration of Israel's independence, 250,000 Arabs were simply forced to leave Palestine. At the same time, many Arab countries did not recognize the independence of Israel and declared "jihad" - a holy war - to the new state. In May 1948, a military conflict began in Israel.

The news of Israel's independence in Palestine instantly spread throughout the world. The countries of the Arab League, immediately after the proclamation of the independence of the State of Israel by Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, began hostilities. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, having united all their efforts, unanimously declared war on the newly created state of Israel. This was the beginning of the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The troops of the Arab League numbered 40,000 soldiers, while the troops of Israel had 30,000. The troops of the Arab League were commanded at that time by the King of Jordan. In 1948, the United Nations called on the conflicting parties to a truce, but the truce plan that was proposed was rejected by the parties as unacceptable to both sides.

At first, the military conflict between Israel and Palestine developed in favor of the Arab League, but the course of the war changed dramatically in the summer of 1948. Within 10 days, the Jewish army, confronting the larger and better armed army of the Arab League, launched a decisive offensive and neutralized the offensive onslaught of the Arabs. In the final offensive of the Jewish army, which took place in 1949, the Israelis occupied the entire territory of Palestine, pushing the enemy to the very borders.

More than 900,000 Arabs were expelled from the Palestinian territory that Israel had conquered at that time. They settled in different Arab countries. At the same time, more than half a million Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and began to live in Israel.

Israel and Palestine history of conflict - lies deep enough. Both sides should sort out this issue, because, as the history of Israel and Palestine says, two peoples can live together in one territory.