The First and Second Intifadas
Introduction
Since the beginning of the first Intifada, thirteen years passed before the second Intifada started, which was a conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The word Intifada is often translated as an uprising or rebellion, but the original meaning in the Arabic language is closer to “getting rid of” something or someone. Today, the history of the skirmish between Israel and Palestinians is one with an unbridled past haunted by vehemence and very few projections for peace. The first Intifada in 1987, which is predominantly pivotal in the history of Israel and Palestine, left a long-lasting effect on the sociopolitical attitude of the two. However, the second Intifada, which was different from the first, remains to be a major deterrence to the construction of healthy relations between the two countries and is a constant reminder that conflict is still there, in spite of all the efforts made to oversee its resolution. This paper tries to compare the first and second Intifada between the Israeli and Palestinians by looking at the relationship between the two and also the impacts of the two.
Historical Background
In order to understand the underlying conflict and the relationship between the two Intifadas, it is important to first look at the history of the bigger Israeli-Palestinian conflict that existed from the time of Israel was declared a sovereign state. Until the Palestinian Liberation organization was recognized in 1974 by the Arab League, the neighboring Arab states were the ones involved in most of the conflict against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. After the creation of the Israeli state in May 1948, the Arab states of Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria moved their forces to the Arab parts of occupied Palestine to defend their Arab counterparts. The war that ensued ended with resolution treaties in 1949, and the Arab forces were humiliated by the new Israeli forces after it gained control of the territories designated for the Palestine state. In 1956, after the Israeli forces invaded Egypt, more pressure between Arabs and Israelis followed, and a second defensive strike against Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in 1967 further diminished any hopes for peace. The wars that followed in 1969 and the 1973 Yom Kippur war brought about huge losses for the Arabs. Following several defeats, the Egyptians signed a peace agreement in 1979, which was also signed by Lebanon in 1983. Even though the Arab countries were not effective in fighting the Israeli occupation, the Palestinians were not contented, and in 197, the first Intifada war broke out in Gaza.
The first Intifada
The state of Israel is made up of about 80 percent of the land in the Palestinian territory. However, “it holds about 64 percent of the population, with close to 8 million Israelis and about 4.5 million Palestinians in the other territories.” Israel’s control of the cities of Tel Aviv and Acre, as well as the city of Jerusalem, had a great significance to the conflict, as it placed a stranglehold on the seaport trade in Gaza. In his book, Gelvin points out that the conflict is deeply rooted in nationalism and the creation of “a historical narrative that traces the unbroken lineage of a group- a nation- over time,” and affirms the right of one territory to justify its right to establish a sovereign state in that territory.” Apart from the contradictory nationalisms and identities being the root cause of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, the Zionist attitudes of the Israeli state, according to Gelvin, came as a result of the anti-Semitic climate in Europe. The events that occurred in Europe prior to 1948 brought about the notion that the Jews must have a sovereign country and that Palestine should be their homeland. As a result, the Palestinians would fight for a sovereign state.
At the beginning of the first Intifada, Israel maintained a stranglehold of the economy of Gaza by regulating trade, and this resulted in an underdeveloped economy that could not support the Palestine workforce. Furthermore, Israel controlled both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, even though Gaza maintained claims to the West Bank until 1988. Although territorial claims were hugely disputed at the time of the beginning of the Intifada, Palestinians had gained a voice that would grow their influence in the international community. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was founded in 1964, gave Palestinians who sought separate representation from the Arab League, representation. In 1974, the UN granted the PLO an observer status when it was recognized as the representative to the global community of the Palestinians. In the same year, the UN recognized the rights to self-determination without external interference of the Palestinians and the right to a sovereign state. As Wilson states, “this implicit declaration of support for the Palestinian cause would theoretically signify an international interest in the peace process between Palestinians and Israel, and one that would recognize a fair agreement between both parties, leading to a sovereign Palestinian state.” However, the lack of follow up from the UN concerning this issue caused frustration among the Palestinians. The failure of the Arab comrades to rescue Palestinian people from the oppression of the Israeli, coupled with the lack of international concern and the progressively harsh economic suppression led to the 1987 uprising.
The Intifada stemmed from alliance amongst different Palestinian organizations working for freedom. The Intifada was effected utilizing the influences between activist groups and also the prevailing social communications, and it was involved in different types of disobedience such as demonstrations, strikes, and refusal to pay taxes. These disobediences were met with tear gas, baton-beatings, and mass arrests, and the Israeli forces succeeded in suppressing the demonstration, which left 1,491 Palestinians and 185 Israelis dead. The Israeli forces additionally enforced strict curfews in all the occupied territories from 1987 to 1993 after the Oslo Accords was signed. However, protests and demonstrations persisted, and protestors organized mass strikes and incessantly protested unfair tax and refused to pay taxes. The UN condemned the Intifada regarding the thousands of Palestinian casualties that resulted in the first month of the Intifada, but no action was taken against the Israeli territory. What followed were attempted peace agreements between the PLO and the Israeli officials and also the involvement of the international community, mainly driven by the U.S. The outcome of these peace attempts was revealed in the 1993 Oslo Accords, and it brought about “hope for a breakthrough in the longstanding conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, recognizing mutual legitimacy and an effort to create a peaceful coexistence, and signaled the end of the first Intifada.” This success in cooperation that led to the restoration of peace caused celebrations as Palestinians hoped for the end of their subjugation, but it was opposed by both sides. Nonetheless, the conflict remained as nations doubtfully eyed the Israeli government and Palestinians went back to their day to day activities.
The Palestinians that had organized the first Intifada remained dissatisfied with the PLO, which had covertly negotiated a contract without them being involved. In essence, the consensuses did not entirely fix the problems between the Israeli and Palestinians since they failed to address the most important and disputed issues such as “the status of Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the right of return of Palestinians living in the Diaspora, security arrangements, borders, and relations with surrounding states.” The settlements swiftly proved to be imbalanced to the Palestinians as Israel continued expanding throughout the West Bank, and even fenced the Gaza Strip as they walled off different Palestine territories. As if this was not enough humiliation to the Palestine people, the disliked leadership of the PLO returned with a bigger role in the Palestinian progress as they strived to repudiate the organizations that were responsible for the first Intifada. The Palestinians, therefore, went back to a state of desolation as more forces sought to deprive them of their rights while the peace process continued between the Israeli government and the corrupt PLO.
The Second Intifada
The weaknesses associated with the Oslo Accords rapidly became apparent, and also the fact that the agreement could not be considered advantageous for the Palestinian people was realized. The overall economic and socio-political condition of Palestinians fell catastrophically within the first few years after the end of the first Intifada. The Accords made at the time of the first Intifada had given Palestinians the right to rule their own territory, which was governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Yasser Arafat was the leader. Internal Palestinian politics led to the formation of the Fatah party by Arafat, which has since been a key division of the Palestinian government. Israelis continued to dominate 80 percent of water sources in occupied territories, which further compounded the existing problem of settler development and population expansion. Apparently, the accords made did not resolve any of the major issues concerning the Israelis’ control of resources and land, as they were to be discussed in future negotiations. The final talks that took place in 2002 at Camp David proved unsuccessful in reconciling the traditional issue of dividing land. After the Camp David negotiations failed, Ariel Sharon, who was Prime Minister Candidate, visited the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem. She claimed that the al-Aqsa mosque would continue under Israeli control, and this implied that Jerusalem would permanently remain under Israeli territory. Many scholars cite this occurrence as the resolute provocation of Palestinian people and an effort to stop the delicate peace processes that were ongoing.
The days after Sharon’s visit to the temple saw the beginning of the second Intifada. Different from the first Intifada, the beginning of this second Intifada was actually contributed by an individual who acted as “a catalyst for an event that was a reaction to many factors, including the lack of results produced by the Oslo Accords, the escalated arrests of Palestinians and confiscation of land, as well as failing economy.” Her contentious declarations spread out quickly, and so did the resulting protest, and the Palestinian people took the opportunity to protest their incessantly deteriorating standards of living in the Second Intifada. The second Intifada was much bloodier than the first one as it left 6,561 Palestinians and 507 Israelis dead. The first Intifada involved much more peaceful protests from Palestinians, as they used utilized organization and nonaggressive tactics to remonstrate against prejudicial Israeli policy and regulation. However, the second Intifada was branded by an extremist tone. There was public support for the Intifada’s violent tactics, and as Palestinians became overly restricted by Israeli security forces, security barriers around the West Bank were dashed, together with the hope of ever coming to peaceful terms by the government under Sharon, and groups such as Islamic Jihad sought to gain favor among the Palestinians and attempt to assume leadership.
The various groups involved in the second Intifada were considered as terrorist organizations since they refined their public image by imposing vengeance for the death of the Palestinians with the death of Israeli civilians. Different from the First Intifada, the Second Intifada saw the introduction of suicide bombers, which was a tactic organized by the terrorist organizations and carried out by common Palestinians. They use suicide bombers even though they had machine guns and homemade mortars since such tactics caused more damage. The Israeli retaliated severely using tanks, missiles, and helicopters to suppress the Palestine protesters. They also targeted important leaders as a way to suppress the spread of the Intifada. Further, compared to the first Intifada, the mobility of the Palestinians was greatly limited, and the constriction of Israeli settlements dramatically increased. This Intifada was hugely broadcasted, and the fighting between the Palestinians and the Israeli was seen across the world. The Arab world, together with other countries all over the world, outraged at the Palestinian people’s mistreatment by the Israeli. However, the Israeli continued their offensively defensive strategy while the Palestinians kept on retaliating.
Conclusion
As seen above, the two Intifadas are similar in the constant repression of the Palestinians through Israel’s manipulation of the economy and social sphere of the territories. The two Intifadas were fighting for the basic human rights of the Palestinians and were aimed at ending the humiliation and mistreatment of the Palestinian people by the Israelis since 1948. On the other hand, despite the common thread of injustice that ties the first Intifada and the Second Intifada, the two are distinct uprisings with distinct events, tactics, and outcomes. First, the condition in which began differs. The first Intifada had a revolutionary spirit as the Palestinians realized that together, they could fight Israel’s attempts to diminish there hope for liberation non-violent demonstrations and communication. The second Intifada, however, started as a cry of frustration at the failed attempt at a peace agreement. As seen, the tactics used in the second Intifada were more violent compare to those used in the first Intifada. As a result, the second Intifada had more casualties than the first one, as mentioned above. In summary, while the two intifadas were an outflow of disappointment and hardship between the different sides, the first Intifada ended with generally little bloodshed and an arrangement which, despite the fact that it fizzled, was a sincere endeavor by the two sides to make a significant and enduring harmony. The second is progressively heartbreaking, rather than achieving talks or peace meetings, it has signaled increasing escalation, the expanding abuse of Palestinians by Israelis, and the expanding radicalization of Palestinians.
Bibliography
Freedman, Robert Owen, ed. Israel and the United States: six decades of US-Israeli relations. Westview Press, 2012.
Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine conflict: One hundred years of war. Cambridge University Press, 2014. 5.
Wilson, Leah. “Boycotts to Bombs: History, Causes, and Comparison of the Palestinian Intifadas.” (2014).
Shafir, Gershon, and Yoav Peled. Being Israeli: The dynamics of multiple citizenship. Vol. 16. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Tessler, Mark. A history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indiana University Press, 2009.
