We have already begun to discuss the first Palestinian Intifada (1987-1992) in class. Our question this week is therefore:
Did the first Palestinian Intifada succeed in achieving its goals? If so, why hasn't an independent Palestinian state emerged so far?
note: if you are a registered student in this course, your answer must somehow reflect the weekly readings to get credit.
The achievements of the first Intifada were limited but nevertheless marked a significant turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although in the long run the Intifada obviously did not result in the realization of an independent Palestinian state the attraction of international attention to the massive, spontaneous protests made the Palestinian question an top priority after decades of being overshadowed by outsider Arab regimes. In my opinion the reason that there still isn't a Palestinian state is not because the Intifada failed but because the subsequent Oslo accords and negotiations ultimately failed to satisfy the majority of Palestinians. Public patience and support of the accords dwindled in the face of protracted negotiations and the slow withdraw of Israeli forces from the West Bank. As a result Palestinian terrorist attacks continued and the Israeli forces refused to a complete withdrawal and that is why today there is still a substantial presence of Israeli forces in the West Bank despite the establishment of the semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority (PA).
ReplyDeleteThe first intifada was a spontaneous uprising in the West Bank and Gaza that was made up of Palestinians, men, women and teenagers with acts that ranged from civil disobedience, large demonstrations, strikes and Molotov cocktails. As the name ‘intifada’ suggests, the aim of the movement was to “shake off” the Israeli occupation. The first intifada increased the international attention to the Palestinian situation and did test the occupation more than had been done before but it did not force the Israelis out. In the end, even if the intifada did not bring an end to the Israeli occupation it persuaded the people of Israel that it would have to end. The intifada was also successful in the sense that the Palestinians had now created a national identity for themselves, no longer just a minority of Jordan, Tunis or any other Arab state. Why is there yet no independent Palestinian state? There are many reasons, which could be discussed and disputed over, but I agree with Parker that it probably has a lot to do with an unsatisfied Palestinian majority. Bill Clinton puts the blame on Arafat, saying that it was his greed, his need for total victory that led to a lot of missed opportunities.
ReplyDeleteWhile the first Intifada did not yet resulted in the formation of a Palestinian state, it did achieve he goal of raising global awareness about the Palestinian cause and it also induced the U.S. to recognize the PLO as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. As Benny Morris describes, previous to the Intifada the PLO was ignored by not only Israel and Western powers, but by other nations in the Middle East as well. The Arab states were focused on other issues in the region, such as the Iran-Iraq War and the Israelis had nothing to gain from working the PLO. Following the Intifada, the Israelis could no longer ignore the Palestinian issue, nor the threat it posed to Israel’s security. Also, because the Palestinians were unable to push all the Israeli’s from Palestinian territories, they were forced to work with Israel to address the issue. This necessity for communication and negotiation led to the U.S. recognizing the PLO as the representation of the Palestinian people, and in doing so pressured Israel to do the same. However, effects of the Intifada that have prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state include the radicalization of Muslim Palestinians. Not all Palestinians supported Fatah. Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood was able to serve as an alternative to Fatah. This division among Palestinians makes the establishment of a Palestinian state difficult because no consensus can be reached on issues such as whether the state would be religious and secular. It seems that while the Intifada succeeded in bringing a huge amount of attention to the Palestinian cause, unless the majority of Palestinians can unite under a leader willing to negotiate and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, then a peace agreement permitting the formation of a Palestinian state is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIn order to say whether the First Intifada succeeded in achieving its goals, I need to know what its goals were. The Intifada started as a mass demonstration without leadership because of many factors, one of which was the dire economic situation for Palestinians. The manner in which the uprising started makes it hard to determine what its exact goals were and what it expected to achieve. Benny Morris, in his book Righteous Victims, says that the PLO, who at first were not involved in the Intifada, later tried to harness the momentum of the uprising and to turn “the indecisive revolt into political and diplomatic gain” (603). Nevertheless, despite the uncertainty of what the aims of the Intifada were, I would say that the its goal was to bring about the creation of an independent Palestinian state. If this was its goal, then the Intifada was not successful.
ReplyDeleteYet the Intifada had some positive results for the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty. The spontaneous nature of its formation at a grass roots level leads me to think that the Palestinians were starting to acquire the right mentality and self-identity for sovereignty; the uprising did not depend on large-scale leadership or succor from Arab countries. This self-identity manifested its maturity in the nonviolent (or unarmed) nature of the demonstrations. The brutality of the IDF in responding to these demonstrations drew criticism from the international community, including the United States, who recognized the PLO as the Palestinians’ representative.
There are multiple ways to approach the question as to whether or not the first Palestinian Intifada was successful, and in order to accurately assess the outcome; one must analyze more than just numbers and statistics. To consider this from the perspective of how many people killed, the Palestinians were wildly unsuccessful. Not only did they fail to kill a significant number of Israelis, they also managed to do far more damage to their own numbers. It seems that the massive civil resistance and protest is rarely what comes to mind when one thinks of the Intifada, but that was in fact one of the largest strengths of their struggle. Benny Morris reiterates that, “it was not an armed rebellion but a massive, persistent campaign of civil resistance, with strikes and commercial shutdowns, accompanied by violent (though unarmed) demonstrations against the occupying forces.” (Righteous Victims, 563) This contradicts the notion that the Intifada was merely out for blood. Thus, to determine if they were successful, it is necessary to look at motives and objectives of the Intifada. It began as a large-scale opposition to the dire economic reality facing Palestinian people and it gradually became a call toward nationalism. Though questionable methods were certainly employed, the Palestinians desperately needed a unifying force – and in this regard, the first Intifada provided just that. The first Intifada allowed the mass populous to engage in a very tangible opposition. There were “650,000 inhabitants of the Gaza strip, 900,000 of the West Bank, and 130,000 of East Jerusalem,” (562) who aspired and desperately desired to create a new Palestine independent of Israel - certainly no insignificant number. On a psychological level, the Arab people had every right to be frustrated after years of humiliation, discrimination, and displacement.
ReplyDeleteThe intifada set the stage for political extremism on both sides as tensions boiled to a new intensity. The struggle for peace no longer sat on the backburner, but rather became an urgent topic of debate. Palestinian dependence of Israeli forces and economics decreased along with the standard of living. From a social standpoint, the Arab community began to recognize a raise in the status of women due to their commitment to the intifada. Young activists became integral voices within Arab communities. Finally, one cannot disregard the importance of Israeli’s recognition of the PLO. This was a great feat, and undeniably a step in the right direction, in spite of the fact that the PLO took initiative by first recognizing Israel.
Though there were unfortunate repercussions to the intifada, overall this necessary resistance allowed for the emergence of a Palestinian voice, which ultimately speaks to the success of this movement.
The first intifada was successful insofar as it attracted international media attention and Palestine gained attention from western nations. Tiegan raises an important question: what exactly were the goals of the first intifada? The intifada was essentially an explosive outcry from a people that had had enough oppression. I believe the ultimate goal of the intifada would eventually be to gain independence, but that the first intifada's supreme goal was to gain attention to a matter that lacked recognition in the global spectrum. In that respect, the intifada was successful.
ReplyDeleteThe creation of an independent Palestinian state couldn't come from the first intifada, mainly because of the disorganization and lack of a common goal. However, if not for the intifada, measures to increase peace and achieve independence, like the Oslo Accords, would not have occurred. Palestine's direct interaction with Israel in the intifada also gave them recognition as an autonomous, self-acting identity. Ultimately, the intifada was only successful in achieving the goal of attracting attention but not in achieving independence.
The first Palestinian Intifada did achieve its goal of making clear the need for peace. I do not believe its original goal was peace itself, but to put the Palestinian issue back on top. However, I am not sure in achieving this goal approximately 2,300 people needed to die. Casualty numbers will vary depending on who you ask, but in the end the IDF killed approximately 1,000 Palestinians and the Palestinians killed approximately 200 Israelis. An important part of the Intifada that many people do not know about is the fact that Palestinians killed around 1,100 of their own people. Many Palestinians were killed by their fellow people for “collaborating” with Israel, or for simply refusing to take part in the protest. Again, the media should really pay attention to who commits war crimes. Benny Morris discusses how some of the casualties occurred. The IDF began to use rubber and plastic bullets to try to lower the number of casualties, but the lack of knowledge of how to use these “non-lethal” weapons still showed them to be quite fatal. Also, the IDF tried to refrain from injuring children, but around 60% of those who threw stones at the Israelis were children between the ages of six and fourteen. 148 Israel soldiers were tried on war crimes against civilians, so not all got away with just anything.
ReplyDeleteHarsh effects came from the Intifada, however. The Palestinian standard of living dropped nearly 35%. Also, prior to the Intifada, 90% of the West Bank and Gaza’s imports came from Israel. This percentage decreases significantly afterward. Despite all of the horror associated with the first Palestinian Intifada, its goals were achieved. After the Oslo agreements, the PLO acknowledged the need for a two-state solution and mutual recognition with Israel. Yet, here we are twenty years later with no peace. Everyone can agree there is a need for peace; No one can agree on the peace needed.
Of course the Palestinian Intifada did not accomplish its goals...a Palestinian state was not formed and has not been formed since. Benny Morris discusses the 1st Intifada in great detail in his book the "Right Victims." The fact of the matter is that the 1st Intifada just the 2nd and 3rd would be, was a way for the Palestinian masses to show their frustration and protest in public. It was a pretty interesting plan but it did not work as well as other public demonstrations worked, say like: the Selma bus boycott, the various "March on Washington" demonstrations by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a few other ones by Civil Rights activists.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why the 1st Intifada did not work and the subsequent 2nd and 3rd Intifadas did not really work is because the nature in which they were done the resources that the Palestinians possessed...or lack thereof. The PLO did not have a strong political influence in Israel or around the world, for that matter. It was somewhat supported by Egypt, Lebanon (until it was kicked out to Tunisia), Jordan, Tunisia, Syria and some Palestinians. Furthermore, Palestinians were poor as Morris stated and they did not have the resources that would allow them to pressure Israel into any sort of negotiations or to even take the Palestinians seriously. In fact, Israel did not take the PLO seriously (nor Fatah as it was) at first. So, when the 1st Intifada erupted in the West Bank and Gaza with mass demonstrations, Israel did not take them to be serious enough to do anything about or worry too much about. Israel saw the 1st Intifada as nothing more than a nuisance that it needed to put down before the Palestinians got too out of hand.
The first Palestinian Intifada began on December 8, 1987. It was a massive persistent campaign of civil resistance with strikes and violent demonstrations that the Palestinians led against the Israeli military. The aim of the Intifada, as Benny Morris points in his book untitled Righteous victims, was to weaken Israel and its hold on the occupied territories by inflicting both casualties and political damage. It was also to increase international awareness of the critical situation in Palestine, and eventually get independence from Israel. The shocking images shown in the media of the IDF fighting against children who were throwing stones was mainly the cause of bringing the Palestinian issues to the top of the international agenda. The success of the first Palestinian Intifada was partial according to me, because despite the fact that it brought about the evacuation of the Israeli military in most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and increased international awareness, it did not ultimately brought about the creation of a Palestinian State. The Intifada brought about changes in both sides, it weakened Israel in many fields and reinforced Palestine on the other way. Economically, it triggered an economic crisis in Israel with the standard of living dropping by 35 per cent. Moreover, the drops in production exports and tourism cost the Israeli 1.5-2 billion during the first year. Politically, it radicalized both left and right wing that split the society. Socially, the Intifada united Palestinian society with the rise of new activist coming from different classes and the improvement of the status of women with their participation. The strong sense of discipline and nationalism allowed them to resist Israeli occupation and push to negotiation. Israel recognized the PLO as representative of Palestine but did not recognize Palestine as an independent State. Indeed, the negotiation between the two parties did not come out with an agreement even though the PLO agreed to make peace and recognize Israel. The Shamir plan was turned down because it was defavorable to the Arabs, and no agreement until today have been made to find a field of agreement to build an independent Palestinian State, hence the partial success of the first Intifada.
ReplyDeleteIn most fields, when a large goal is made, it is recommended to first define a series of smaller, “bite sized” goals that will lead to the large goal being accomplished. Breaking the large goal into smaller bits creates benchmarks so you can evaluate how close you’re getting to the big goal, which usually requires time.
ReplyDeleteI think the “big goal” for the Palestinians was the creation of an independent Palestinian state. When looking at that as the only goal, the 1st Intifada failed miserably. However, if you look at “bite sized goals”, the 1st Intifada was quite successful in accomplishing several. The smaller goals Palestinians accomplished that stick out most to me are (1) the attraction of international attention and (2) the platform that provided everyday Palestinians an outlet and venue for their frustration.
According to the media, if you’re not reading about it (or in this day & age tweeting, facebooking, watching on YouTube, etc), then it’s not happening. This was very real for frustrated Palestinians whose plight was largely ignored by the international community, and even by several neighboring Arab countries. The international attention and global awareness that ignited during the 1st Intifada was a huge deal for all involved. It was the first time that other nations took note that there was something happening in Israel.
Without international pressure a Palestinian state can never come into existence.
As Benny Morris describes in his book “Righteous Victims”, hundreds of thousands were previously quieted, but in the Intifada, the voices of 650,000 in the Gaza Strip, 900,000 in the West Bank, and 130,000 in East Jerusalem were finally given a stage. To the Palestinians who hadn’t seen anything substantive happen in their favor in decades, this was monumental. They weren’t just being vocal, they were actively and physically opposing what they saw as a “brutal, foreign military occupation” (Morris 562).
In addition to creating a Palestinian state, the goal of the Intifada, according to Morris, was to put the Palestinian issue back on the global agenda, bring global attention to the injustices carried out by the Israelis, weaken the IDF and weaken Israel’s control over the Palestinian occupied territories. While a Palestinian state was not created, the Intifada was otherwise successful in meeting the Palestinians goals at that time. However, success came with a price. The radicalization of the Palestinians and rise in Muslim religious fundamentalism and the increased use of terrorist tactics by the Palestinians revitalized and produced much of the hatred that exists today within the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, although the world became more aware of the Palestinians’ dilemma, mediating Western states were not willing to negotiate with, much less grant an independent state to a group which seemed to consist of political radicals, religious fundamentalists, and terrorists. Furthermore, since both sides were accused of wrongdoings, it was more important to initiate and mediate negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians rather than simply punish the Israelis.
ReplyDeleteThe first Intifada was a failure. It brought attention and loosely formed an identity for the Palestinians, but resulted in no substantial conclusion to the Arab problems.
ReplyDeleteThe protests were capitalized on by those wanting to make a political statement by exploited its participants’ anger. Their goals were realized by gaining international support and the eventual recognition of the PLO, but the civilians out doing the rioting were doing so mainly out of economic desperation. Unlike the second Intifada, this one was not provoked and cannot be titled a success.