Prior to the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman Empire had maintained control of the Middle East for nearly four-hundred years. At the end of the nineteenth-century, Palestine was divided between the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, Syria Vilayet, and Beirut Vilayet (cite). The region was predominantly inhabited by Arab Muslims, with smaller populations of Christians and Sephardic Jews. At the time, most Jews lived in eastern and central Europe, with significant communities in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Americas. Conflict between Jewish and Arab populations originated in the rise of nationalist movements, including Zionism and Arab nationalism. Although an attachment to Zion, the center of Jewish faith in Jerusalem, had been an integral part of religious thought for centuries, the movement gained political significance throughout the nineteenth-century. As a result of widespread persecution and the rise of antisemitism, the Jewish population began to actively discuss immigration to Israel. In 1896, Theodor Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), contending that in the onslaught of Western influence and the redistribution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine should be allocated to the Jewish people.
Such Zionist ambitions were increasing identified as a threat by Arab rulers. Developments including the acquisition of lands from Arab owners for Jewish settlement, were perceived as disposing Arabs of their land. Furthermore, Ottoman authorities were apprehensive of increased Russian and European influence in the region. Policy makers invoked land-purchase regulations in response to increasing immigration, concerned that immigrants loyalty to their country of origin might undermine Turkish control of Palestine. Tensions were further exacerbated by European influence throughout World War I. Contradictory promises made by England in the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, coupled with the British Mandatory period, triggered outbreaks of violence. The 1920s witnessed increased hostility between Palestinians and Jews, galvanizing the modern conflict. Should nations, specifically Britain, be obligated to assist in the process to reduce human rights violations that have arisen as a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict? While Israel is the primary actor in contemporary violations, does England retain responsibility due to their historic actions and precedents that precipitated Israeli empowerment?
Current Human Rights Violations
The 2017-2018 report from Amnesty International details current human rights violations that have arisen from the Israel-Palestine conflict. Specifically, Amnesty International surveyed violations occurring in Israel-proper (West Bank/Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip (cite). June 2017 marked fifty years since the occupation of Palestinian Territories (OTP) began. Throughout the occupation, both sides have exhibited a disregard for international law through continued human rights violations. While the ceasefire between Israeli and Palestinian forces in Gaza established in 2009 has been generally respected, the area has been subjected to increasing restrictions (cite). Israeli authorities have continued to circumvent international law, expanding settlements in the OPT and restricting the movement of Palestinians with approximately six-hundred roadblocks and checkpoints. Amnesty International condemned Israeli forces for violating numerous articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including: the unlawful killing and detention of Palestinian civilians, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, the restriction of Palestinian free movement, and the curtailment of free expression. These abuses constitute the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians for the actions of Hamas, a militant group that has long called for the destruction of Israel. The Israel-Palestine conflict was transformed by the intifadas, along with the Hamas takeover of Gaza, triggering unprecedented levels of violence and human rights violations.
Unlawful Killing and Detention of Palestinian Civilians
Article III of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.†(cite) The rights of security and life are violated by the unlawful killing of Palestinian civilians and the subsequent failure of the Israeli authorities to investigate such crimes. Throughout 2017-2018, Israeli forces were cited with killing at least seventy-five Palestinians from the OPT. While some were killed due to their role in leading attacks against Israelis, many (including children) were shot while posing no immediate threat to life. The Israeli military court has consistently failed to investigate cases of alleged unlawful killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. More than three years after the 2014 Gaza-Israel conflict, in which approximately 1,400 Palestinian civilians were killed (many as a result of unlawful attacks), the authorities only indicted three soldiers for lesser crimes of looting and obstruction (cite). In 2016, the extrajudicial execution of a wounded Palestinian by Elor Azaria, an Israeli Defense Force soldier, contributed to the widespread public debate concerning Israeli use of excessive force. The Israeli military court indicted Azaria for murder, but later reduced the charge to manslaughter. His conviction and prison sentence was confirmed on appeal, however his sentence was eventually reduced by four months. The __________ The unlawful killings of Palestinian civilians, coupled with Israeli authorities failure to investigate, constitute violations of rights to life and security.
In addition to unlawful killings, the continued arbitrary arrest and detention of Palestinians violate several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article IX states “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile, while Article X affirms that “everyone is entitled to a fair public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.†Additionally, Article XI (1) asserts that “everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has all the guarantees necessary for his defence†(cite). During 2017-2018, Israeli forces detained or continued to imprison approximately 6,100 Palestinians (cite). Palestinians from West Bank charged with protest-related offenses endured unfair military trials and received harsh sentences for minor crimes. Although the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a decision to reduce excessive sentencing of Palestinians, sentences remained harsh. To juxtapose, authorities repeatedly substituted administrative detention for criminal prosecution, holding hundreds of Palestinians without charge or trial (cite). Imprisoned detainees were denied visits with their families and lawyers, were subjected to solitary confinement, and were denied access to education. In April, around 1,500 Palestinian prisoners launched a 41-day hunger strike, demanding better conditions (cite). Protestors were punished with solitary confinement, fines, and continued denial of family visits.
Torture and Ill-Treatment
Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†(cite). Israeli authorities subjected detainees to torture and ill-treatment with impunity, often during arrest and interrogation (cite). Interrogation techniques include beating, slapping, painful shackling, sleep deprivation, and threats to invoke confessions (cite). Despite more than 1,000 complaints against these practices, no criminal investigations have been opened. Furthermore, the Israeli High Court of Justice affirmed the Attorney General’s decision not to open a criminal investigation into Asad Abu Ghosh’s torture claims, despite credible evidence. This decision effectively condoned the continued use of sleep deprivation and stress position against Palestinian detainees.
Restriction of Palestinian Movement and Forced Eviction of Palestinians within Israel
Article XIII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.†(cite) The right to movement is currently violated by Israel’s continued air, land, and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip. Restrictions on movement of people and goods into and from the region coincidently resulted in violations of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which submits that “everyone has the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself, including food, clothing, housing, and medical†(cite). Israeli forces utilized live ammunition to enforce the blockade, stationing soldiers at “buffer†and “exclusion†zones. While these measures were intended to protest Israeli borders, Palestinian farmers and fisherman were often fired upon and injured. The blockade, coupled with the closure of the Rafah border, resulted in an humanitarian crisis. Increased electricity cuts affected clean water and sanitation, rendering Gaza increasingly “unlivable†(cite). Additionally, patients with life-threatening illnesses were unable to access treatment outside of Gaza, due to Israeli restrictions and delays by West Bank authorities (cite). In the West Bank, Israel maintained nearly six hundred military checkpoints, bypass roads, and military firing zones, restricting Palestinian access and travel (cite). Moreover, prohibitions limiting Palestinian presence in Hebron were enacted. In Tel Rumeida, Israeli forces subjected Palestinian residents to oppressive searches. Concurrently, other Palestinians were barred entrance, while Israeli settlers were permitted free movement.
Along with restrictions on movement, Israeli authorities forcibly evicted and demolished Palestinian homes and villages. In the West Bank. Israeli forces executed the large-scale demolition of Palestinian property, including 423 homes built without Israeli permits. However, these permits are virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain, thus Israeli authorities unjustly evicted more than 600 people (cite). Additionally, the Israeli police ordered the destruction of Palestinian homes and villages within Israel. In January, authorities forcibly demolished the village of Umm al-Hiran and built a Jewish town in its place. Recently, the Knesset (parliament) passed legislation that raised fines for building structures without permits, mandated that those whose homes were demolished pay for the demolition, and limited recourse for those challenging demolition or eviction orders (cite).
Curtailment of Free Expression
Article XIX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression,†whereas Article XX submits that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.†Israeli forces have continued to violently suppress outcries against ill-treatment of Palestinians and opposition to the occupation. Under public order laws in Jerusalem, Israeli authorities crushed Palestinian protests, often utilizing excessive force. For instance, in response to tensions over Temple Mount, police killed ten and injured more than a thousand Palestinian protesters. Despite the fact that the demonstrators did not pose a threat to life, Israeli police employed rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to dispel the protest (cite). Moreover, Israeli authorities charged several human right defenders and protestors on charges related to their role in organizing peaceful demonstrations. In addition to Palestinians, at least six Israeli conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned. To prevent criticism from the international community, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Entry of Israel Law that barred entrance to individuals that supported or imposed boycotts. Furthermore, Israeli authorities obstructed human right workers’ attempts to document the climate by denying them entry into the OPT. These efforts illustrate attempts to silence opposition to the occupation and the treatment of Palestinians in Israel.
Introduction to Historical Context of Conflict
Although this is not an exhaustive list, the aforementioned violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights illustrate the dire nature of the situation. In modernity, Israeli authorities are culpable for the gross violation of human rights that have occurred in Israel-proper and the Gaza Strip. However, simply condemning their actions does not resolve this century-long conflict. In order to better understand the dynamic, it is imperative to examine its historical origins, specifically the role of English intervention. While tensions erupted upon Israel’s declaration of independence (1948) and intensified in numerous ensuing wars, hostility originated in contradictory promises made during World War I and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict rests on conflicting claims to statehood, precipitated by English intervention. Although England withdrew from Palestine in 1948, Britain remains obligated to assist in the peacemaking process, due to the long lasting implications of their historic actions. These actions, along with evidence of their consequences, will be described in the following sections to substantiate claims of British obligation. This is not to minimize the responsibility of Israel or Palestine, rather to fulfill the political responsibility of England for setting the precedent that facilitated Israeli empowerment.
World War I: Balfour Declaration
In 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration pledging support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Additionally, the declaration stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (cite). On the surface, this statement seems innocuous. However, British motivations for its issuance were multifaceted. The Foreign Office aimed to protect imperial interests in the Middle East, garner Jewish support for the war, and entice the then neutral United States to aid Allied efforts. These interconnected motives were politically-driven, intending to enhance English prestige in the global hierarchy.
Throughout the war, Jewish loyalty was challenged. Although European Jews represented diverse, highly pluralistic communities and held a broad spectrum of political, social and religious views, they were seen as a collective entity (cite). The British Foreign Office postulated that Jews were a powerful pro-German force, apathetic to English interests. Thus, the Jewish people became an important consideration in the war effort, based on the assumption that Jews were fraternizing with the enemy. English officials hypothesized that securing Zionist support would calm protests in Russia, counteract German sympathies, generate nationalism in France, England, and Italy, and enthuse the United States. Moreover, the British Foreign Office hoped to capitalize on Jewish wealth, arguing “anti-semitism makes Jewish financial assistance to the Allies very difficult to obtain and this war may well turn on finance.†(cite)
The most obvious solution was Russian reform to counteract anti-semitism, while quelling Jewish protests. Throughout World War I, Russian authorities were suspect of Jewish loyalty, deeming the Jews a dangerous element of the population. The Russian army expelled Jews from areas near the front lines, restricted their movement, and captured hostages to instill fear and submission in the Jewish population (cite). Reduction of these acts of anti-semitism would have secured Zionist support, but neither Britain nor France were in a position to obligate Russia to act. Thus, efforts were shifted to a Palestino-centric solution to the “Jewish question.†While Lucien Wolf, the wartime director of the British Jews, was an outspoken opponent of political Zionism (believing that the Zionists were wrong to give up the idea that European Jewish minorities could secure full citizenship rights), he argued that the policy of the Palestine would “sweep up the whole of the American Jewry into allegiance to the Allied cause.†(cite). Moreover, the creation of a national home for Jewish people in Palestine (as a British protectorate) would fulfill British imperial interests in the Middle East. However, the Balfour Declaration does not exemplify British substantiation of Zionist ideals. Instead, the declaration epitomizes British practice of monopolizing persecuted minorities as a means to further the English political agenda.
World I: McMahon-Hussein Correspondence
In addition to the Balfour Declaration, England pledged support for the advancement of Arab independence through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Whereas the Balfour Declaration sought to protect imperial interests in the Middle East, while garnering Jewish and American support, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was incentivized by “military necessity.†In 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered the war, allied with the Axis Powers. English officers in the Middle East believed that an Arab revolt against the Ottomans was imperative to defeat the enemy. Sir Henry McMahon, the High Commissioner to Egypt, subsequently opened discussion with Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Correspondence proceeded from July 1915 through January 1916, at which point the necessary terms to provoke Arab revolt against the Turkish Ottoman Empire were fixed. In 1916, the Arabs revolted against the Turks, resulting in a series of campaigns which ended with the capture of Damascus in 1918. While Arab nationalists upheld their end of the bargain, British fulfillment of their promise is dubious. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, coupled with controversy surrounding the nature of the Arab independent state, led Palestinians to believe that Britain betrayed the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.
Establishment of the British Mandate
Following the war, the Treaty of Sevres (1920) dismembered the Ottoman Empire. Victors took control of the former Ottoman territories under “mandates.†The British Mandate subsumed the Sanjak of Jerusalem and part of the Vilayet of Beirut (included all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza) (cite). In 1922, the League of Nations outlined British obligations in the Palestine Mandate. The mandate recognized the historical connection of Jewish people with Palestine, tasking Britain with the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people. Additionally, the mandate stated that Britain should not do anything that might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country (cite). Additionally, the mandate detailed regulations concerning Jewish immigration, the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews, and safeguards against human rights violations based race, religion, and language.
Palestinians objected to the British Mandate, arguing that it constituted British violation of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Palestinians asserted that the creation of an Arab independent state between Iran and Egypt included Palestine. However, Britain denied any intent to create an Arab state in Palestine. British authorities submitted that the territory was not included within the independent state as McMahon excluded “portions of Syria lying to the west districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.†(cite). The British claimed “district†was equivalent to “vilayet,†arguing that since the Vilayet of Damascus included part of Syria (now Jordan) which lay east of the River Jordan, it followed that the part of Syria (Palestine) which lay to the west of the River Jordan was one portion of territory excluded from the Arab state. Palestinians rejected this contention, viewing the British Mandate as colonial rule. Moreover, Palestinians reiterated that the Balfour Declaration made no mention of the creation of a nation-state. The wording stated the homeland would be in Palestine, suggesting it would not supplant Palestine itself. Despite opposition, Jewish immigration increased during the interwar period due to the ever-growing population of stateless people.
Interwar Period: Statelessness
The interwar period illustrated the catastrophic effects of World War I. Inflation and unemployment crippled European economies, while civil wars demonstrated the political instability of the era. The Peace Treaties attempted to regulate the “nationality problem†in Eastern and Southern Europe, that resulted from the disintegration of the Dual Monarchy and the Czarist Empire, through the establishment of nation-states and Minority Treaties (cite). However, these territories were characterized by a lack of population homogeneity, often encompassing conflicting national claims. (cite). Additionally, the Minority Treaties only covered nationalities with considerable numbers in the succession states, other nationalities lived without a government of their own (cite). The rapidly growing population of stateless and rightless people were considered the undesirables of Europe. Jews were specifically singled out as “the scum of the earth.†(cite).
The Jewish population of Europe played an important role in the history of minority nations and the formulation of a stateless people. Jews did not constitute a majority in any succession state, requiring international protection to safeguard rights. The lack of a Jewish majority nation, coupled with anti-semitism, produced the assumption that statelessness was primarily a Jewish problem. The interwar period sparked a debate concerning the appropriate status and treatment of Jews. Some governments elected to ignore the issue, while others had more ominous intentions. The German solution to the Jewish question involved the reduction of German Jews to a minority population, driving them across borders as stateless people, eventually collecting them to be detained in concentration camps. Widespread persecution and increased statelessness of Jewish people in Europe prompted increased the immigration of Jews to Palestine.
Interwar Period: Violent Outbreaks
Throughout the interwar period, Jewish immigration to Palestine rapidly expanded due to anti-semitic manifestations in Europe and Russia. The Arab population in Palestine opposed the increase of the Jewish population, feeling dispossessed by the acquisition of land from Arab owners for Jewish settlement. During the 1920s, relations between the Jewish and Arab populations deteriorated and hostility between the two groups intensified. In 1921, the Jaffa Riots occurred. The riots were perpetuated by Palestinian Arabs, due to clashes surrounding the May Day Parade. British Mandatory forces and Jewish militias responded to the riot, which resulted in the death of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs (cite). Britain established the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry to investigate the riots. The commision attributed the outbreak of violence to Arab discontent over the political and economic consequences of Jewish immigration, along with perceived pro-Jewish bias by Mandatory authorities (cite). The report was followed by the publication of the 1922 Palestine White Paper, aimed at reducing hostility. While affirming support for the Balfour Declaration, Britain ascribed tension to “exaggerated interpretations†of the declaration (cite).
In 1929, tensions erupted over a long-running dispute concerning access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The 1929 Palestine Riots consisted of attacks on Jews by Arabs, accompanied by the destruction of Jewish property. British authorities issued the Shaw Commission Report (1930), which determined that Palestinian Arabs were directly responsible for the outbreak of violence. However, the commission expressed that Arab animosity toward Jews concerning increased Jewish immigration and purchase of land contributed to the 1929 Palestine Riots. In response, Britain imposed significant restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases. Despite these regulations, the Arab Revolt in Palestine (1963-39), resulted in mass casualties. Palestinian Arabs organized resistance to the British Mandatory government and the Jewish population. The uprising consisted of guerilla warfare, attacks on civilians, arson strikes, and demonstrations of civil disobedience (cite). Mandatory securities forces suppressed the revolt, leading to the deaths of several hundred Jews and several thousand Arabs. In response, Britain issued the Peel Commission Report (1937)
The Peel Commission Report identified Arab opposition to the continued establishment of a Jewish national home as the primary cause for the revolt. Repeated violent outbreaks against Jewish immigration and the Balfour Declaration, coupled with “incompatible†national aspirations, led the commission to recommend the partition of Palestine into two states (with a buffer zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem). The proposed Jewish state would include the coastal, Jezreel Valley, Beit She’an, and the Galilee. While the Arab state would include Transjordan, Judea, and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, and the Negev (cite). Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion convinced the Zionist Congress to approve the recommendations as a foundation for further negotiations. However, Arab leadership in Palestine rejected the proposition, refusing to share land with the Jewish people. In 1939, the British government issued a new paper policy, advocating for the establishment of a binational state in Palestine. The 1939 White Paper initiated a quota on Jewish immigration and placed restrictions on land purchases. These regulations remained in place until the expiration of the British Mandate period in 1948.
The Jaffa and Palestine Riots, as well as the Arab Revolt, illustrated the ramifications of British intervention in the Middle East. As previously stated, British intervention was politically motivated. The Foreign Office aimed to galvinize Jewish and American support in the war effort, while fulfilling imperialistic desires. These egocentric policies were implemented without regard to their implications, disadvantaging both Palestinian Arabs and Jews. The execution of the Balfour Declaration, coupled with Mandatory governance during the interwar period, fueled conflicting Zionist and Arab national aspirations. Palestinian Arabs perceived the mass-migration of Jews as an invasion backed by the British Mandate. Moreover, the coalition of Mandatory forces and Jewish militias to suppress riots, alluded to pro-Jewish bias. In an attempt to combat Palestinian discontent, Britain clarified the intent of the Balfour Declaration. Officials stated that while the “Jewish national home†was to be established in Palestine, the nation was not meant to be wholly Jewish (cite). Furthermore, Britain stipulated that Jewish immigration should be limited to the economic capacity of Palestine and imposed restrictions. Policies restricting Jewish immigration failed to reduce tension, rather they bolstered conflicting claims to statehood. Arabs continued to oppose the presence of Jews in Palestine, reiterating a desire for self-autonomy. To contrast, Zionists deemed constraints on immigration antithetical to the establishment of the Jewish national home. Jews interpreted the Balfour Declaration as British substantiation of Zionist ideals, therefore exclusion from the territory intensified Zionist claims to the land. Conflict that arose during the interwar period resulted from British failure to consider the implications of politically-motivated intervention, which provided the foundation for the modern Israel-Palestine conflict