The Background and Future of the Arab Israeli Conflict

History and Development of International Conflict Management: Israel-Arab Conflict

Today, the 22 member-states of the Arab League are scattered across the Middle East and North Africa where the lands have long been the source of conflict. Indeed, since antiquity, the lands that are currently occupied by Arab nations have been the fountainhead from which humankind emerged, as well as the source of relentless wars between the Arab and Israeli peoples based on fundamentally different ideological, political and religious worldviews. Despite some on-again, off-again diplomatic efforts to identify viable paths forward for peaceful co-existence of the Arab nations and Israel over the years, the troubling headlines today closely resemble those from countless years past. To determine the facts about this seemingly intractable conflict and to identify opportunities for going forward, the purpose of this study is to provide a detailed background of the modern Israel-Arab conflict beginning with the biblical point and view followed by a discussion concerning the various concepts and theories that underpin the conflict. In addition, the study identifies the relevant conflict management styles that have been employed in the conflict and an application of the appropriate conflict management tools that should enable conflict management specialists to proffer practical recommendations for resolving the conflict. Finally, the study summarizes the research findings and highlights of the Israel-Arab conflict in the conclusion.

A detailed background of the conflict

The conflicting issues and the conflicting parties involved in the Israel-Arab conflict are multiple, and the stages in which the situation has evolved and developed into the current manifestation are longstanding and complex. As the current war between Israel and Hamas grinds to a bloody close, it remains unclear whether this military action will be sufficiently decisive to prevent future terrorist attacks in the region, but it is reasonable to suggest that the fundamental calculus that is involved will remain relatively unchanged. Indeed, the historical record is replete with instances of violent conflicts between Israel and their Arab neighbors based on various biblical claims to Zion as the Jewish homeland promised them by the Almighty on High.

According to the biblical account, God’s granting of Israel as a homeland to the Israelites occurred over an extended period through a combination of divine promise, corresponding military conquest, and subsequent settlement, a pattern that remains salient today. In Genesis 12:7, God first covenanted with Abraham to give the land of Canaan to his descendants: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram [Abraham] and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.’”

This covenant was reaffirmed with Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob, later called Israel. After the Exodus from Egypt around 1446 BCE, God declared Canaan as the rightful homeland for the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua. This is clearly powerful stuff. Whenever people firmly believe that God has made them promises, including giving them a homeland, it is little wonder that they will hold onto it, kicking and screaming forever, and this has certainly been the case with the Promised Land. As noted above in Genesis, though, this Promised Land from God had defined geographic boundaries that have important historical implications for modern Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The occupations of the Promised Lands occurred gradually through military campaigns over hundreds of years, with the Israelites destroying Canaanite fortresses and settling the regions allotted to each of the 12 tribes. After exile in Babylon, Jewish leaders like Ezra and Nehemiah reestablished Israelite control in the late 6th century BCE. As a result, God’s covenant with Abraham was eventually fulfilled as the Israelites acquired and populated Canaan through prolonged phases of divinely sanctioned conquest, allocation, exile, and return.

In other words, the granting of Israel to the Jewish people their homeland spanned several generations rather than happening instantaneously, but there is some indication of the immediacy of the proclamation in the Hebrew Bible. For example, according to the Hebrew Bible, God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8). This divine promise was the basis for a covenant establishing the land as the Jewish homeland. Following the Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites conquered Canaan under leaders such as Joshua, dividing the territory among their twelve tribes. Thereafter, following several periods of exile, Jewish leaders Ezra and Nehemiah later led waves of Israelites to restore Jewish sovereignty. Therefore, from Israel’s perspective, these biblical accounts firmly ground Jewish claims to the land in ancient history.

The Bible also describes episodes of military conflict as the Israelites warred with Canaanites and neighboring groups to take control of areas God had granted them. There were also later power struggles between Jewish and Gentile rulers battling for regional supremacy. Centuries of Diaspora followed, with Jewish attachment to the land persisting through prayers and scripture. The dispersal of Jews from ancient Israel to foreign lands known as the diaspora began in the 6th century BCE when the Babylonian conquest forced a mass exile to Mesopotamia (Feller 2005).

Though some Jews returned after Persia’s takeover, many remained in diaspora communities across the Middle East and Mediterranean. Subsequent failed revolts against Roman rule in 70 CE and 135 CE precipitated an even larger exodus of Jews banished from their homeland. Significant populations spread around the region, laying the foundations for worldwide Jewish diaspora. Exile from the traditional land, synagogue establishment, cultural adaptation abroad, and retaining identity defined the early diaspora experience. Some groups, such as the Ashkenazi Jews, multiplied over centuries, while others faded; however, the imprint of Babylonian and Roman expulsions persists as the definitive onset of the millennia-long global dispersion of Jews originating from ancient Israel.

After World War II, the modern state of Israel was established again as the Jewish homeland. After experiencing the horrors of the Holocaust, the Zionist movement gained increasing international support for reestablishing a Jewish national homeland in the Biblical lands of Israel. In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a partition plan officially dividing the British Mandate territory into Jewish and Arab states (Ben-Dror 2013).

In May 1948, Israel declared independence as the reborn Jewish state with David Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister. Immediately after, Israel was recognized by the United States and Soviet Union despite Arab opposition. Mass immigration of Jewish refugees followed from around the world. Israel gained additional land in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that erupted after its declaration of statehood. Despite some territorial losses, Israel emerged from the war having established itself as an independent nation-state and renewed homeland for the Jewish people in the ancient lands of their ancestors. Though its boundaries, politics, and society have continued to evolve, Israel’s founding as a modern state represented the dramatic rebirth of the Jewish homeland in the Biblical Promised Land after millennia of Diaspora (Ben-Dror 2013).

This revived ancestral claims to the area, now replete with other inhabitants. Competing nationalist groups like Palestinians also assert ties to the same lands described in the Bible. With sacred lands at stake and influenced by ancient enmities, struggles for control of the region continue. While simplified, the biblical sources provide founding context for attachments now colliding. The text’s outsized role adds a theological and historical dimension to the region’s current conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors, as well as internecine wars involving Muslim countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Turkey which are not Arab but which share a common heritage and religion.

Most recently, the Arab-Israeli conflict emerged in the early 20th century with the rise of competing Jewish Zionist and Arab Palestinian nationalist movements, both claiming the land of Israel/Palestine as their rightful homeland. As a direct result, tensions escalated under British control and erupted into communal violence. The pivotal events of Israel’s 1948 founding war solidified the territorial dispute, with 700,000 Palestinians being displaced in the process. Subsequent wars in 1967 expanded Israel's borders but left Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights under prolonged Israeli occupation (Gelber 2021). These expulsions followed hard on the heels of the original Nakba (Arabic for ‘catastrophe’) which memorializes the forced displacement and dispossession of Palestinian Arabs during the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. This event resulted in the creation of a large population of Palestinian refugees. Not surprisingly, the Nakba is a deeply significant and sensitive aspect of the Israel-Arab conflict and has shaped the historical and political landscape of the region with many observers suggesting the current situation in Gaza is yet another Nakba.

From the Israeli perspective, the uneasy and uncertain period before the 1967 war created a sense of grave threat and abandonment, as Arab nations collectively tightened the siege while the international community seemingly did nothing in response. Moreover, following Israel’s upset victory against its Arab foes in the Six-Day War, this sense of distrust in other states was reinforced and fueled further disregard for external criticism of its actions in defense of its national sovereignty (Gelber 2021).

In addition, and with echoes that still reverberate today, censure of Israel’s post-war position, even by allies, further angered the Israeli public. Indeed, many Israelis then – and now -- argue that the government should act solely in the nation’s interests rather than heed condemnations by opponents or friends abroad given the nation’s precarious position. Consequently, Israel’s defensive reaction distanced foreign governments, though not yet all Western public opinion. Nevertheless, the British ambassador described Israel’s response to criticism after the war as xenophobic. In sum, from the Israeli point of view, the Six Day War heightened disillusionment with the morality of other states, bolstering nationalist attitudes favoring self-interest over international approval (Gelber 2021).

These issues assumed new importance and relevance when Palestinian nationalist groups launched violent resistance campaigns seeking to reclaim lost lands. Limited self-governance was established under the Oslo peace process in the 1990s, but final status negotiations failed to materialize a two-state resolution (Morrison 2020). In this context, the Oslo process refers to the 1990s peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO leading to the Oslo Accords. Secret talks in Norway produced the historic 1993 Oslo I agreement for Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank. This established the Palestinian Authority, with Yasser Arafat as its first president. Oslo II in 1995 detailed further Israeli withdrawals and interim governance arrangements. The accords marked the PLO's recognition of Israel and renunciation of terror, while Israel recognized the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people (Yarhi-Milo 2013).

The original intent of the peace process was for Oslo to establish the framework for permanent status negotiations on core issues like borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements; however, the 1995 assassination of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin derailed momentum. Subsequent summits failed to reach a final deal. While establishing Palestinian self-governance, Oslo’s vision of two states living peacefully side-by-side remained unfulfilled. Continued violence and collapse of high-level talks ensured the interim became permanent. In fact, Israel maintained control over disputed areas, while Palestinians remained an occupied and stateless people. Despite fluctuations in conflict intensity, the fundamental clash between Jewish and Palestinian nationalism, each laying claim to the same contested land, has perpetuated the dispute over the decades unto the present day.

Today, the Arab world in general and the Palestinian people in particular find themselves in a predicament that is based, in part, on their adamant refusal to accept the terms of the 1947 UN Partition Plan that would have granted Palestine both land and statehood. Rather than accept these terms which Israel grudgingly agreed to, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states elected to attack Israel in an erstwhile early attempt to eradicate the fledging nation from the global map once and for all (‘The Palestinian Catastrophe’ 2022). Not surprisingly, this millenia-old conflict has been the focus on an enormous amount of scholarship over the centuries, and numerous academicians and political analysts have weighed in concerning the underlying theories and concepts that underpin the conflict as discussed further below.

Identification of concepts and theories that underpin the conflict

The concepts and theories that underpin the conflict are multiple. At its core, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fueled by competing nationalist ideologies that emerged in the early 20th century - Zionism calling for a Jewish homeland in the region and Palestinian nationalism. Central concepts that perpetuate the dispute include both sides believing the same territory belongs exclusively to their nation based on history and religious claims. This relates to the theory of nation-states, where each nation seeks self-determination in a homeland. The refusal to relinquish these exclusive nationalist territorial claims or recognize the validity of the opposing side's attachment to the land has sustained the conflict (Schmitz, Atkinson and Lebaron 2023).

Realist theories viewing power and security as pragmatic, zero-sum underpin aggressive policies over land and militarization. Identity theory also plays a role, with control of territory viewed as intrinsic to each side’s national identity. In sum, the foundational force perpetuating the enduring Israel-Arab conflict remains two incompatible nationalist ideologies that are firmly centered on their respective, exclusive claims and emotional attachment to the same disputed homeland.

In reality, though, the Arab-Israeli conflict is fundamentally intertwined with competing nationalist ideologies that emerged in the region in the early 20th century, specifically the Zionist movement calling for a Jewish homeland and Palestinian Arab nationalism (Getzoff 2020). Core concepts that fuel the ongoing dispute include apparently irreconcilable claims to the same disputed territory based on history and sacred texts, with both groups asserting that the same lands belong to them. Consequently, neither side is willing to compromise by giving up a single square inch of territory at present as a result.

The current situation with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict also relates to the theory of the nation-state, where each nation seeks self-determination in their own land. The refusal on both sides to relinquish these nationalist land claims or recognize the validity of the opposing side’s legitimate right to the land has perpetuated the conflict. Likewise, realist theories viewing power and security as zero-sum underpin aggressive policies toward control of territory and militarism (Arieli 2016). Likewise, identity theory also plays a role in the Israel-Arab conflict, as control of sacred land has become intrinsic to national identities (Culp 2018). All of the foregoing means that incompatible nationalist ideologies asserting exclusive rights and attachment to the same land have sustained the intractable and enormously costly Israel-Arab conflict to date.

Identification of the relevant conflict management styles employed in the conflict

The prevailing conflict management style has been competing, with both sides of the conflict pursuing their respective interests aggressively with little or no cooperation evident. For example, Israel employs military force and control over territory to maintain security, while Palestinians use terrorist attacks (witness the October 7, 2023 horrific incidents), protests, violence, and international advocacy to resist Israeli occupation. This zero-sum dynamic has served to perpetuate the Israel-Arab conflict in ways that defy easy resolution, especially when considering the firmly entrenched and longstanding nature of the respective claims that are involved.

For example, the Palestinian perspective views modern Israel as driven by an extremist Zionist ideology that leads to excessive hatred and discrimination against Arabs within Israel as well as the occupied territories. This view is reinforced by the fact that Israel possesses overwhelming military force supplied by the US and Europe (Sarsour 2022). Likewise, from the Palestinian perspective, Israel aims to control all lands from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river in pursuit of Greater Israel, while denying Palestinian rights and aspirations to statehood, especially if this meant sharing Jerusalem as a capital.

In support of this view, Palestinians cite Israel’s displacement of Palestinians in the 1948 war, and their subsequent seizure of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967, as proof-positive of this relentless expansionism. Furthermore, within Israel, Palestinians maintain that racist policies increasingly discriminate against Palestinian Arab citizens across society. In sum, the Palestinian view is that Israel’s ideological ambitions combined with its unchecked power and vilification of Arabs make a just resolution to the conflict unattainable. In other words, Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular perceive an existential struggle against an Israel intent on occupying the entirety of historic Palestine through whatever means necessary (Sarsour 2022).

Clearly, there are more than two sides to the Israel-Arab conflict, and identifying efficacious conflict management strategies has remained frustratingly elusive, most especially given the intractable nature of the respective positions held by opposing sides in the conflict. Accommodating strategies such as unilateral concessions have been tried from time to time but all have failed as mutual distrust between the belligerents remains high. Likewise, collaboration has also had limited success, but even incremental peace deals like Oslo faced major and apparently insurmountable obstacles and setbacks. Moreover, the historical record confirms that heavy-handed arbitration by outside powers breeds resentment from all stakeholders involved in the conflict.

Most recently, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Committee issued a multi-pronged peace proposal in September 2022 that appeared dead on arrival, but which nevertheless provides a useful framework in which to view the Arab perspective of the current conflict. Interestingly, the proposed peace accord would not focus on bridging the negotiations gaps of the past that separated the PLO from the Government of Israel. Rather, it will seek to maximize potential support from the Israeli and Palestinian people themselves, in anticipation of referendums on the peace proposal among both peoples” (‘An Initiative to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ 2022, p. 84).

Moving forward, compromising may enable breakthroughs. Indeed, both parties must make painful sacrifices in exchange for guaranteed security and sovereignty. A two-state solution with borders based on 1967 lines requires substantive compromise from all stakeholders. A two-state solution establishing side-by-side Israeli and Palestinian states, though, faces monumental obstacles. Core issues like borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and Palestinian refugees must be resolved, but compromise remains elusive. Israeli security fears clash with Palestinian demands. Final borders would likely be based on 1967 lines, but land swaps and settlements make delineation complex. Since both sides of the conflict claim Jerusalem as their capital; dividing or sharing the city is politically hazardous and efforts along these lines have the potential to backfire in the future.

Indeed, the issue of Jerusalem pops up time and again in the calculus about resolving the Israel-Arab conflict, and this problem in particular represents a monumental challenge for conflict resolution specialists. When people of any religious ilk are firmly convinced that God is on their side, rationalizing even the most heinous acts becomes a simple matter and this has been the case with all sides involved in the conflict. Some situations involve “deal-breakers” that cannot be overcome unless something or someone gives, and this has long been the situation with Jerusalem.

Given that three of the world’s major religions share Jerusalem as one of their most sacred holy sites and any violation of the sanctity of these sites represents an egregious act of war, any proposed solution can easily backfire unless truly sincere efforts are made by all concerned parties to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In fact, short of nuking Jerusalem and turning it into the world’s most radioactive holy site that can still be venerated from afar but not visited, Jews, Christians and Muslims are going to have to share this city in some capacity. Even assuming this unlikely eventuality, though, there are some profound logistical challenges that are involved in a two-state solution that have become increasingly apparent as Israel continues its military incursion into Gaza.

For instance, relocating hundreds of thousands of settlers from Palestine under such a proposal seems logistically and political infeasible. After all, the Palestinian people have essentially worn out their welcome among neighboring Arab countries time and again due to their propensity for terrorism and violence, a harsh reality that has prevented hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians from relocating to Syria, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. Indeed, there have been numerous historical instances where Palestinians were expelled or faced displacement from certain Arab countries, often in the context of regional conflicts and geopolitical shifts. This is not to say, of course, that all Arab countries have rejected Palestinian refugees and hundreds of thousands of them continue to live abroad in these nations today. It is to say, however, that the Palestinians have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to some Arab countries due to their propensity for terrorism.

This is not to paint the Arab people in general and Palestinians in particular with a broad terrorist brush, but the fact remains that extremist elements within this population have routinely engaged in violent activities that still define their status today. For example, during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), there were violent conflicts involving Palestinian armed groups, and the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982 resulted in the displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Likewise, during the Gulf War in 1991, Palestinians faced severe backlash in Kuwait due to their perceived support for Iraq. As a result, many Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait, and their properties were confiscated by the state. In addition, following the ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003, some Palestinians faced persecution and displacement in Iraq, with allegations of their association with the Ba'athist regime. Many sought refuge in neighboring Arab countries or became internally displaced.

Furthermore, the question of whether Palestinian refugees can return to Israel has also consistently derailed negotiations over a two-state solution. Security, mutual recognition, and broader regional support would be essential for viability and preventing violence during implementation; fundamentally conflicting nationalist claims to the same lands, though, drive maximalist demands instead of reasonable concessions from leaders. With political will lacking, a highly intricate two-state pact addressing all core issues simultaneously appears profoundly improbable given the immense difficulties that are involved.

Indeed, despite the ongoing bloodshed in Gaza, it is unlikely that a viable two-state solutions will emerge from the carnage. In fact, some observers suggest that policymakers in the United States and Israel are more than willing to simply accept the current situation, apparently hoping against hope that Hamas and like-minded terrorist organizations will somehow just disappear of their own accord. The reality is that in recent years, the two-state solution has faded from mainstream Israeli political discourse, even among center-left parties who long championed it. Even many ardent supporters consider a two-state solution as a “dead” idea, though no alternative plan has emerged to replace it (Scham 2022).

By contrast, in the US the two-state paradigm remains firm orthodoxy among Democrats and the Jewish establishment. When Israeli leaders like Lapid merely mention two states, it makes headlines. On the right, annexation of occupied territory was once promoted yet halted under the prized Abraham Accords. While the two-state framework has lost purchase in Israeli politics, the vacuum of workable substitutes persists; however, the equivalency drawn by Americans between supporting Israel and backing two states diverges from the Israeli reality where the paradigm has diminished substantially (Scham 2022).

Though right-wing annexation plans by Israel have stalled, exhaustion with the failed process has marginalized two states across the spectrum without a new consensus option emerging (Scham 2022). In this regard, Scham emphasizes that, “The dirty secret is that some form of the status quo seems to be the unspoken, de facto ‘solution’ for most Israelis who deal with the conflict. Foreigners, in seeming contrast, continue invariably to pay lip service to the two-state solution” (2022 p. 711).

Some evidence in support of this “dirty secret” foreign policy approach can be discerned from the U.S. president’s words and actions during a recent visit to Israel. In this regard, Scham adds that, “President Biden, during his brief July 2022 visit, epitomized this perfectly when he unveiled US$100 million in aid for Palestinians and $201 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and told Palestinian President Abbas how strongly he supports the two-state solution but avoided mentioning any political horizon whatsoever” (p. 716).

Achieving the apparently unachievable compromises that are needed for a viable Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution would demand extraordinary political courage and public persuasion from both sides. Painful sacrifices of land, holy sites, refugee claims, and existential dreams would be unavoidable. In addition, creative security guarantees and incentives could convince Israelis to forfeit settlements and share Jerusalem as their capital. Generous offers of outside aid and a clear path to statehood might compel Palestinians to surrender maximal demands. Political and religious leaders would need to convince their skeptical people of any deal’s justice.

All of the core issues that are involved in forging a two-state solution to the Israel-Arab conflict such as geographic borders, security, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, must be resolved in a collaborative fashion, requiring a grand bargain between the stakeholders. In the event talks deadlocked, an imposed settlement may be required to achieve any real progress in the future. To transcend seemingly immutable grievances, a truth and reconciliation process could help humanize the other parties that are involved in the conflict. While the underpinning issues seem intractable, the right incentives and political vision might still birth two states; extraordinary leadership, risks and persuasion, however, would be absolutely essential in order to push past the otherwise impossible.

In the interim, transformational conflict management methods focused on humanization could also help reframe narratives of demonization that fuel and perpetuate the violence that has long characterized the Israel-Arab conflict. For instance, while such initiatives may seem pie-in-the-sky and even pollyannish in nature, a growing body of research confirms that exchange programs fostering people-to-people connections may gradually shift attitudes among the belligerents. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to suggest that no single approach will resolve the complex Israel-Arab conflict overnight; however, gradual confidence-building through compromise and transformed attitudes offers a path forward. Sustained top-down political will is essential for even incremental progress, just as support from Western allies and the larger global civil society as well.

Indeed, the argument can be legitimately made that no substantive progress will ever be made in resolving the Israel-Arab conflict so long as each side remains adamant in its positions, perspectives and demands, and the historical record confirms that effecting meaningful changes in this area is especially daunting and perhaps even impossible at present. The current hostilities that are taking place in Gaza provide a mirror reflection of the political dynamics that are taking place within and without Arab nations today. For example, according to a recent report from Guyer, the escalation in violence between Israel and Hamas has sparked demonstrations across the Arab world, revealing broader tensions despite some Arab states’ normalization deals with Israel.

Protests from Morocco to Jordan clearly show grassroots solidarity with Palestinians, even as some Arab governments officially engage Israel. Such rallies provide rare outlets for political speech in autocratic Arab nations. While some Arab onlookers have cheered the violence, most back Palestinian rights, not Hamas, and object to Israel’s military domination of the region since 1967, enabled largely by Western support. Beyond Hamas radicals, Arab populaces remain dissatisfied with Palestinian dispossession and feel solidarity against perceived Israeli aggression and overreach. These sentiments pressure Arab regimes to back Palestinian causes despite shifting geopolitics. So the wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations reflects both deep Arab public solidarity as well as domestic frustration with limits on political dissent. As Guyer concludes, “In the Arab world, people have been as quick to show support for Palestine as most American politicians have for Israel” (2023 p. 5).

Unfortunately, the stakes could not be higher. In fact, many Arab countries, whether they openly admit it or not, appear dead-set on seeing the Jewish people destroyed once and for all. In fact, this is the stated goal of many Islamic organizations operating in Arab nations today. For example, Article 22 of the Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council dated July 1-17, 1968, specifically states in part that:

Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.

Therefore, it may only be the threat of Israel’s purported nuclear capabilities that has prevented a wholesale massacre of the Jewish people by their Arab neighbors to date. Given this stated ultimatum by the PLO and against this backdrop, even the most talented and optimistic conflict resolution specialists may despair, but all hope is not lost nor is the current status quo carved in stone. Absent God himself appearing before all of the belligerents and commanding them to lay down their arms and make peace with each other because they were all so very, very wrong about His messages to humankind, though, other monumental steps are needed to achieve lasting results to the Israel-Arab conflict.