Israel and Palestine are an unresolved conflict. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict: development, history, reasons - why they are fighting - latest news

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a confrontation between Israel and a number of Arab states, peoples and organizations located primarily in the Middle East region. This confrontation is of a religious, political, economic and informational nature.

Modern history The Arab-Israeli conflict (fourth stage) begins in 1994. The confrontation has entered a new phase - terrorism and Peace negotiations are being held with constant frequency, but their effectiveness is not yet so high that the war could be stopped. today has become an international problem and has involved many intermediaries in its resolution. All participants in the confrontation (except for the most radical terrorist groups) realized the need for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

However, it is unlikely that the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved in the near future. According to politicians and historians, today it is worth being prepared for an even greater escalation of the confrontation. A number of factors contribute to this. First of all, we are talking about taking a hostile position towards Israel. Increasing its influence will lead to the strengthening of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

In Palestine, given the problems of internal power, there are no conditions for vesting it with sovereignty. Israel's own position has significantly hardened since right-wing forces came to power. Radical Islamic groups continue to refuse to recognize any rights of Israel to its existence, continuing their terrorist activities. The refugee problem has become insoluble, because no solution to the conflict suits both sides at once. In addition, in the region, not only people are at the limit, but also the forces of nature: water sources are depleted.

The Arab-Israeli conflict remains the most intractable and acute of all conflicts of our time.

To be honest, there is a lot of confusion in this question, but I will try to sort everything out and give a comprehensive answer. Why does Israel need a war with Palestine and what do these two names represent?

What is Palestine?

It’s worth mentioning right away: Palestine is not a country, but only a historical region. Yes, this territory was inhabited for thousands of years, but unfortunately for many, it never became a country (at least not now).

What is Israel?

This is already a state. And, by the way, the historical region of Palestine includes the territory of Israel. The question remains why they are fighting with Palestine if such a country does not even exist. Now this name is used for other purposes - to somehow designate refugees who previously lived on the territory of the Jewish state and now inhabit the Gaza Strip.

What started the war?

Origins modern conflicts can be found in the Bible in the story of Abraham. He and his wife Sarah had two children: Ishmael and Isaac. It is believed that the first one became a parent Arab people, and the second - Jewish. However, even as a child, Ishmael constantly mocked and mocked his brother, as a result of which Abraham had to take radical measures - he kicked out the prodigal son. This is how the conflict began, according to the church.

In addition, the story about the Jews is also mentioned in the Koran, where it is ambiguously stated about how Muslims should treat this people: either be friends or hate - the holy book contains both arguments.

Why is Israel now fighting the failed state of Palestine?

After World War II, what is now Israel was inhabited by modern refugees from the Gaza Strip. By decision of the UN, Jews who had nowhere to go were sent to. There they settled tightly and over the years almost completely replaced the Arab population. Of course, that, in turn, reacted negatively to this. Appeared terrorist organizations, like Hamas, and a long conflict began. Of course, there were breaks, but the hostility never subsided and the news continues to hear news about terrible incidents in Israel or the Gaza Strip. It seems that enmity is prescribed for these peoples. Here are the main reasons:

1. Religion.
2. Division of territory.
3. Long story battles.

I hope that a compromise will finally be found!

Egypt: Israel and Palestine: conflicts, confrontations and wars between Israel and Palestine.

• Last minute tours to Israel
• Tours for May Worldwide

Israel and Palestine are two opposite sides of an armed confrontation that has been going on for decades. It is believed that the beginning of this conflict began at the end of the 19th century, when the idea of ​​​​creating a separate state for Jews who suffered constant oppression arose and began to actively spread. After the end of the First World War, which entailed a new “redistribution” of territories in the Middle East, the question of the return to the Promised Land of people whose ancient ancestors once lived in the Kingdom of Judah became especially acute, but the Arab states and the Arabs living in Palestine were strongly against this.

The fact that the word “Palestinians” today refers to the Arabs who lived and are living on the territory of modern Israel is a merit of the 20th century. Previously, this word did not have any ethnic connotation. They simply designated the entire population. Moreover, historically ancient Palestine extends far beyond the borders of the small state of Israel, and only after the First World War did a kind of “renaming” take place.

After the proclamation of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948, the latter was declared war by the League of Arab States, which led to the flight of the Arab population from Israel and the eviction of Jews from Arab countries as a result of brutal pogroms. Subsequent events worsened the already difficult relationship. The famous Six-Day War in 1967 significantly expanded Israel's borders, but did not solve the problem. In particular, the eastern part of Jerusalem, where many shrines for both Jews and Muslims are concentrated, was included in the state. Today the situation has softened somewhat, but the struggle for territory continues.

Previous photo 1/ 1 Next photo

Historical roots of the conflict

Palestine is a territory with ancient history. Around the 11th century. BC. Ancient Jewish tribes began to penetrate into the territory of Palestine and created their own states here (the kingdoms of Israel and Judah). Later, Palestine was part of the states of the Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, Ptolemies and Seleucids, and was a province of Rome and Byzantium. Under the Romans, the oppressed Jewish population was dispersed to other countries in the Mediterranean region, and some were assimilated with the local Christian population. In 638, Palestine was conquered by the Arabs, and it became one of the provinces of the caliphate called al-Falastin. It was during this period that the territory of the country began to be populated by Arab peasant fellahs. Muslim rule in Palestine lasted almost 1000 years. In 1260-1516. Palestine is a province of Egypt. Since 1516, this territory was part of Ottoman Empire, being part of either the Damascus vilayet or the Beirut vilayet. Since 1874, the region of Jerusalem has been allocated in the Ottoman Empire, governed directly from Istanbul. In 1917, during the First World War, Palestine was occupied by British troops and became (from 1920 to 1947) a British mandate. At the beginning of the 20th century. Palestine began to be perceived by international Jewish circles, organized at the first Zionist congress in Basel in 1897, as a hotbed of Jewish statehood. The Zionist Organization began to undertake practical steps on the Jewishization of the country. During this period, the construction of Jewish cities and settlements was underway (cities such as Tel Aviv - 1909, Ramat Gan - 1921, Herzliya / Herzliya / - 1924, Netanya - 1929 were created), the flow of Jewish immigrants from Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. In Palestine, which was already largely overpopulated and lacking free land and water resources, conflicts began to flare up between the Arabs who had taken root here almost fifteen hundred years ago and the arriving Jews.

The idea of ​​creating separate Arab and Jewish states in Palestine first emerged in the 1930s. In 1937, a British royal commission proposed a plan to divide the mandate territory into three parts. The first, covering the territory of northern Palestine, including Galilee and part of the coastal strip, was intended for the Jewish state. The second sector, which occupied Samaria, the Negev, the southern part of the right bank of the Jordan, as well as the cities of Tel Aviv and Jaffa territorially separated from them, was supposed to serve for the creation of an Arab state. Finally, the third sector, according to the commission's plans, was to remain under the neutral mandate of Great Britain. This sector, along with the Judean Mountains, which have an important strategic position, includes shrines of Muslim, Jewish and Christian culture: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth. The outbreak of World War II prevented the implementation of this plan. After the end of the World War, the question of the division of Palestine was revived. Jewish organizations recalled the horrors of the Holocaust and demanded the immediate proclamation of the State of Israel. The scheme for the partition of Palestine proposed by the UN in 1947 was very different from the plans for the pre-war political reorganization of the region. According to UN General Assembly Resolution No. 181, the Jewish state significantly increased its area at the expense of Arab territories in the south. From the neutral international zone, under which 1/10 of the territory of Palestine was originally supposed to be allocated, only a small enclave remained, including Jerusalem and Bethlehem with the nearest suburbs. This territory was to be administered by the UN administration with the help of a special elected body and be completely demilitarized. The planned territory of the Jewish state included three, and the Arab - four unconnected sections of territory. The UN resolution violated ethnic parity. The territory of the Jewish state, due to the desert spaces of the Negev, turned out to be larger than the Arab one, which did not correspond to the ethnic picture of post-war Palestine: in 1946, there were only 678 thousand Jews for 1,269 thousand Arabs.

In Palestine, the only Jewish state was created - Israel (1948). Peaceful coexistence on the same land of two states hostile to each other with different religious and cultural foundations, with vaguely defined artificial borders, was impossible.

This is one of the longest regional conflicts of our time, lasting more than 60 years. In general, the history of the conflict can be divided into several key stages: the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 (first war), the Suez crisis of 1956 (second war), the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. (3rd and 4th Arab-Israeli Wars), Camp David Peace Process 1978-79, Lebanon War 1982 (Fifth War), Peace Process 1990s (Camp David Accords 2000) and The 2000 Intifada, which began on September 29, 2000, is often referred to by experts as the “sixth war” or “war of attrition.”

The first war broke out immediately after the declaration of independence of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. Armed contingents of five Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon occupied a number of territories in the southern and eastern parts of Palestine, reserved by UN decisions for the Arab state. Then the Arabs occupied the Jewish quarter in Old Jerusalem. The Israelis, meanwhile, took control of the strategically important road leading from the coast to Jerusalem, passing through the Judean Mountains. By the beginning of 1949, armed forces were able to occupy the Negev right up to the former Egyptian-Palestinian border, with the exception of a narrow coastal strip Gaza Strip; this strip remained under Egyptian control and it is now usually called the Gaza Strip, although according to the UN decision of 1947, the Arab Gaza Strip should be much larger in area. The Jordanian army managed to gain a foothold in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The part of the West Bank occupied by the Jordanian army began to be considered part of the Jordanian state. The February-July 1949 negotiations, which led to a truce between Israel and the Arab countries, fixed the temporary border between the opposing sides at the lines of military contact in early 1949.

The second war broke out seven years later. Under the pretext of protecting the Suez Canal, nationalized by the Egyptian government, which was previously owned by European companies, Israel sent its troops into the Sinai Peninsula. Five days after the start of the conflict, Israeli tank columns captured the Gaza Strip, or rather, what was left of it to the Arabs after 1948-1949, occupied most of the Sinai and reached the Suez Canal. In December, following a joint Anglo-French intervention against Egypt, UN troops were deployed to the conflict area. Israeli military forces withdrew from Sinai and the Gaza Strip in March 1957.

The third war, called the Six Day War due to its transience, took place from June 5 to 10, 1967. The reason for it was the intensification of bombing of Israeli military targets by Syrian aircraft in early 1967. During the Six Day War, Israel practically destroyed the Egyptian air force and established its hegemony in the air. The war cost the Arabs the loss of control over East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Sinai and the Golan Heights on the Israeli-Syrian border.

Periodic armed clashes that followed the Six-Day War gave way to a new escalation of the conflict on October 6, 1973. On the day of the Jewish religious holiday Yom Kippur, Israeli army units were attacked by Egypt in the Suez Canal area. The Israelis managed to break into Syria and encircle the Egyptian Third Army there. Another strategic success of Tel Aviv was crossing the Suez Canal and establishing its presence on its western bank. Israel and Egypt signed an armistice agreement in November, which was sealed with peace accords on January 18, 1974. These documents provided for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sinai territory west of the Mitla and Gidi passes in exchange for a reduction in Egypt's military presence in the Suez Canal zone. UN peacekeeping forces were deployed between the two opposing armies.

On March 26, 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty at Camp David (USA), which ended the state of war that had existed between the two countries for 30 years. In accordance with the Camp David agreements, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, and Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist. The two states established diplomatic relations with each other. The Camp David agreements cost Egypt expulsion from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League, and its president Anwar Sadat - his life.

On June 5, 1982, tensions increased between the Israelis and the Palestinians who had taken refuge in Lebanon. It resulted in the fifth Arab-Israeli war, during which Israel bombed Beirut and areas of southern Lebanon where Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) militant camps were concentrated. By June 14, Israeli ground forces went deep into Lebanon to the outskirts of Beirut, which was surrounded by them. After massive Israeli shelling of West Beirut, the PLO evacuated its armed forces from the city. Israeli troops left West Beirut and most of Lebanon by June 1985. Only a small area in southern Lebanon remained under Israeli control. On the night of May 23-24, 2000, under pressure from international peacekeeping organizations and taking into account the opinion of its citizens who did not want to pay with the lives of soldiers for a military presence on foreign territory, Israel completely withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon.

At the end of the 80s, real prospects for a peaceful exit from the protracted Middle East conflict emerged. The Palestinian popular uprising (intifada) that broke out in the occupied territories in December 1987 forced the Israeli authorities to resort to searching for a compromise. On July 31, 1988, King Hussein of Jordan announced the termination of administrative and other ties of his country with the West Bank of Jordan; in November 1988, the independence of the State of Palestine was proclaimed. In September 1993, with the mediation of the United States and Russia, a declaration was signed in Washington, opening up new ways to resolve the crisis. In this document, Israel agreed to the organization of the Palestinian National Authority (but not a state), and the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist. In accordance with the Washington Declaration, an agreement was signed in May 1994 on the gradual introduction of Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year transition period (initially in the Gaza Strip and the city of Ariha (Jericho) in the West Bank). In the subsequent period of time, the territory over which the PNA began to exercise its jurisdiction gradually expanded. In May 1999, when the temporary status of the PNA expired, the Palestinians tried a second time - and on more serious grounds - to declare their independence, but were forced to abandon this decisive step under pressure from the international community.

Overall, the five Arab-Israeli wars demonstrated that neither side could decisively defeat the other. This was largely due to the involvement of the parties to the conflict in the global confrontation of the Cold War. The situation in terms of conflict resolution changed qualitatively with the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the bipolar world.

Changes in the world have led to the fact that the Arab-Israeli confrontation has emerged from the system of global confrontation between the USSR and the USA. In the process of resolving the conflict, significant positive changes emerged, which were evidenced, in particular, by the Palestinian-Israeli agreements in Oslo in 1992 (the main point of which was Israel’s gradual transfer of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to self-government by Palestinian representatives), the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty 1994, Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations 1992-1995 etc.
In general, the late 80s and early 90s were marked by dramatic changes in the process of peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. The “crown” of the entire process was Israel’s recognition of the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people, as well as the exclusion from the Palestine Charter of the clause denying Israel’s right to exist.

However, starting in mid-1996, the dynamics of the negotiation process and Palestinian-Israeli relations changed for the worse. This was due to internal political changes in Israel and the problems of building a Palestinian state. At the same time, the culmination of this period was the visit in September 2000 of the leader of the opposition right-wing Likud party Ariel Sharon to Jerusalem, where he made a provocative statement in which he stated that he “will use all democratic means to prevent the division of Jerusalem,” in a response to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who proposed dividing Jerusalem into two parts: Western - Israeli and Eastern - Arab. With this provocative speech, the Intifada 2000 began, which marked the beginning of the modern Middle East crisis.

"Stumbling blocks."

The main constant conflict-generating factors of the Arab-Israeli confrontation still remain the following issues:

1. Status of Jerusalem.

2. Palestinian refugees.

3. Israeli settlements.

4. Boundaries.

It is the impossibility of resolving these key problems, due to a number of subjective and objective reasons, that permanently leads to an aggravation of the situation in the conflict zone.
The impossibility of a peaceful settlement lies in the fact that both the Palestinians and the Israelis put forward one-sided and practically unacceptable conditions to each other. So, for example, Israel demands that Yasser Arafat stop terror and neutralize terrorist organizations, but while maintaining the policy that, in principle, gives rise to this terror. In turn, Palestinian demands on Israel are also unacceptable from the point of view of the Israelis and their interpretation of maintaining security in the region. The Palestinian demands boil down to:

1. Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders (the 1948 borders are no longer out of the question);
2. recognition of the East part of Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state;
3. the right to return about 4 million refugees to their previous place of residence, that is, to Israel,
4. liquidation of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory (this mainly concerns the eastern part of Jerusalem and the East Bank of the Jordan River).

For Israel, according to its experts, compliance with any of these demands, especially those related to the issue of borders and refugees, threatens to actually lose its independence. To a certain extent, one cannot but agree with such conclusions. For example, the hypothetical return of almost 4 million Palestinians to 6 million Israel, where the Jewish population is about 83%, means a total change in the ethno-demographic composition of the population, which will inevitably entail political and economic cataclysms. In general, the problem of Palestinian refugees remains one of the main sources of tension in Arab-Israeli relations.

Another sore point in Arab-Israeli relations is the status of Jerusalem, which was the main cause of the last Intifada in 2000. The 1967 war (six days) cost the Arabs the Old City of Jerusalem (Eastern Arab part), Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank ( territory of Jordan) and the Golan Heights (on the Syrian-Israeli border). In general, Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem in 1967 played a key role in the rise of Islamic religious and political organizations in the Middle East region and in the heyday of Islamic terrorism. At the same time, the largest event in this period, which caused sharp discontent of the entire Muslim world, was the burning of the third Muslim shrine - the famous Al-Aqsa Mosque in August 1969. When signing any agreements, be it the Palestinian-Israeli agreements in Oslo 1992, or The Camp David Accords of 2000, the issue of the status of Jerusalem has always been key and at the same time the most controversial. The reluctance of the Israelis to follow almost all UN resolutions on the transfer of the East part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of the Palestinian state causes serious discontent on the part of the Arab states and provokes terrorist activities of various Islamic extremist organizations in Israel. The Israeli authorities explain their reluctance for the following reasons:

the principle of the indivisibility of the capital of the Jewish state (in Jerusalem there is the residence of the president, the Knesset (parliament), government offices, etc.)

fear (not unfounded) that over time the East part of Jerusalem will turn into the center terrorist activities Palestinian extremist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad;

In addition, it is in the eastern part of the city that the relics of three religions, including Judaism, are concentrated.

As for the position of the Palestinians, we can cite the statement of the former head of the Palestinian government Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas):

“We told them at Camp David that we would not accept their presence at the Western Wall. On the contrary, at the Western Wall (a small part of the Western Wall) you can conduct your religious ceremonies. We agreed that they could pray at the Western Wall, based on the decision taken by the British Shaw Commission of 1929. The commission ruled that the Western Wall belonged to Muslims, but Jews were allowed to pray near it. Besides, all of eastern Jerusalem belongs to us. On the last day they presented their ridiculous proposals, according to which we would receive sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and they would have sovereignty over the territory under the Temple Mount. It is clear that we took it as a joke. This is an unacceptable and humiliating proposal and we have rejected it.” Abu Mazen's position on the Jerusalem issue is known. Jerusalem, like every other “Palestinian city occupied since 1967, and especially the Temple Mount, should belong only to Palestinians.”

The Western Wall mentioned above is another stumbling block in the conflict. The history of this dispute is as follows. In August 1929 The Arabs demanded that the entire Western Wall be given to their direct use. The Jews refused to do this. On August 23, a large crowd of Arabs came to the Western Wall and dispersed the Jews who had gathered there. Armed police came to the aid of the latter and entered into a firefight with the Arabs, during which more than 100 people were killed and wounded. In response, Muslim committees were created to protect the “buraq” (as the Western Wall is called by the Arabs) from capture. In turn, the Jews presented their demands - to cry and pray at this wall in Jerusalem. Jewish demonstrations began in Arab neighborhoods near the Western Wall. In response to this, the Executive Committee of the Arab Palestinian Congress staged a protest demonstration, which took place at the same Western Wall.

Subsequently, a special section of the UN resolution of November 29, 1947 was devoted to a survey on the status of the Temple Mount and the Western Camp. resolution on the division of Palestine and the creation of two states on its territory - Arab and Jewish (paragraph 13 - Holy places), which stated the following:

a) already existing rights in relation to Holy Places or buildings and places intended for religious purposes cannot be abolished or limited;

b) free access to Holy Places or buildings and areas designated for religious purposes and the free exercise of worship shall be ensured in accordance with existing rights, subject to the requirements for the maintenance of public order and decency;

c) Holy places and buildings and areas intended for religious purposes are subject to storage. No actions are permitted that might violate their sacred character.

A new escalation of the dispute occurred in September 1996, after the Israelis opened a tunnel leading under the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jews used this historic water tunnel three thousand years ago. Animals sacrificed in Solomon's Temple were washed with its water. But concerned Muslims decided that clearing the tunnel of rubble could lead to the Al-Aqsa Mosque subsiding or even collapsing, or to terrorists filling the tunnel with dynamite and blowing up the Temple Mount. According to the Palestinians, by opening the tunnel, the Israeli authorities intend not only to prove that Al-Aqsa was erected on the site of Solomon's Temple, but also, by allowing tourists there, they intend to destroy the mosque and erect a copy of Solomon's Temple in its place.

The position of the Jews in this dispute boils down to the following statements: “The Temple Mount was, is and will always be the holiest place for the Jewish people. Even after the destruction of the Temple, our presence on the Temple Mount remained uninterrupted for almost fifteen centuries.”

“Arabs live in 99.9% of the Middle East. Israel occupies an area equal to 0.1% of the region's area. This fact haunts its Arab neighbors. And no matter how much land the Israelis cede, it will not be enough for the Arabs. As for the holy places of Islam in Jerusalem, there are none. In the Koran, which mentions Mecca hundreds of times and Medina hundreds of thousands, there is not a word about Jerusalem. The reason is quite clear - the Prophet Muhammad never visited this city. So how did Jerusalem become third in the world in terms of Muslim shrines? The Sons of Islam quote the vague sura seventeenth of the Koran - “Night Journey”. In his visions, Muhammad went at night "... from one divine temple to another blessed holy temple." That is, Muslims say, from Mecca to Jerusalem. Myth, fantasy, obsession with wishful thinking. But the Jews simply and irrefutably build their Jerusalem tree, which goes back to Abraham.”

No agreement has yet been reached on any of the controversial issues between Israel and the PA.

Current situation.

Currently, the Palestinian Intifada, which began in 2000, continues in the conflict area. Today, participants in the political process in the PA, just like in Israel, can be divided into two camps:

1. supporters of the restoration of the process of peaceful resolution of the conflict, the formation of the state of Palestine within the established framework international treaties conditions for establishing acceptable relations with Israel;

2. irreconcilable opponents of any negotiations with Israel (or Palestine), supporters of continuing the fight until the complete destruction of the enemy.

Currently, thanks to the aggressive and uncompromising policies of the government of A. Sharon, there has been a sharp radicalization Palestinian society, which ultimately led to a significant change in the balance of political forces in the PA. The role of Yasser Arafat, who only a few years ago had full power, has today been reduced to a minimum, while the influence and support of extremist organizations from the PA population has increased to almost absolute levels. According to statistical surveys, Hamas' actions are now significantly more popular among Palestinians than Arafat's official policies. So, if in September 2000 Hamas was supported by 23% of Palestinians, then in October 2001 - already 31%, while the number of supporters of Fatah (an organization controlled by Arafat) decreased over the same period from 33% to 20%.

Behind Last year the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians has increased extremist organizations. In response, Israel carries out its military operations and imposes a blockade on Palestinian territories. Israeli intelligence services are waging a merciless war against the leaders of terrorist organizations. And the number of victims is increasing, and among them there are more and more of those who simply happened to be nearby at the time of the terrorist attack or retaliation operation.

For example, an Israeli helicopter fires two rockets at a car driving through the streets of Gaza. A senior figure from the Hamas terrorist group, his wife and two children were killed. When journalists asked one of the leaders of the Israeli General Security Service (Shin Bet) how this could happen, he replied: “A technical slip.” The agent, a resident of Gaza, who directed the Israeli helicopter to the target, did not have time to report mobile phone that there are a woman and children in the car.

As for the situation in the opposing camps, recently there has been some kind of split in each of them. Among the Israelis, the opposition is gaining strength, the work of which has already resulted in the emergence of the Geneva Agreement, which will be promulgated on November 20 this year and involves many concessions that Sharon does not want to make. The opposition considers Sharon's policies too radical. There is another group of people dissatisfied with Sharon's policy - those who consider it too soft, betraying the interests of Israel and blame the Prime Minister for the emergence of the Geneva Agreement. This group has complaints about the following steps of Sharon and his government:

1. The adoption of regulations by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that actually facilitate the acquisition of Israeli citizenship by even more non-Jews.

2. The adoption by the government of the “Road Map” plan, in fact another modification of the failed agreements that brought the country to a terrorist war.

3. Arrest of a group of Jewish settlers accused of being members of plotting terrorist attacks against Arabs. Most of the accusations could not be proven; the rest are based on more than dubious evidence.

4. Negotiations between Israel and the terrorist organization Hezbollah on the exchange of a kidnapped Israeli citizen and the bodies of 3 Israeli soldiers for more than 400 Arab terrorists, whose arms are up to their elbows Jewish blood, sitting in Israeli prisons.

5. Preparation of an “alternative to the Geneva Agreement” plan for a final peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. In accordance with this plan, the direction towards the creation of a “Palestinian state” in the Land of Israel is reaffirmed. Initially, such a state should be created on the territory of the Gaza Strip, which means the withdrawal of Israeli troops from there and the dismantling of all Jewish settlements located there.

A typical example of a split in the Israeli camp is the “conscientious objector pilots.”

On September 25, a group of 27 Israeli Air Force pilots sent a letter to the command stating their refusal to participate in operations in the autonomous territory. Orders to bomb residential areas just because terrorists might be hiding there are called criminal and immoral in the letter. Israeli President Moshe Katsav condemned the actions of the pilots. According to Katsav, the pilots’ letter refusing to follow orders raises not only moral, but also political issues. Israeli Air Force Commander Dan Halutz signed a decree suspending nine of the 27 active pilots who signed a letter refusing to carry out combat operations. “We, veteran and active-duty pilots who have served and continue to serve the State of Israel for many weeks a year, refuse to carry out illegal and immoral orders such as those carried out by Israeli soldiers in the Palestinian territories. We do not intend to participate in Air Force operations conducted in civilian areas,” the message read. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz announced that those pilots who signed the letter who expressed regret for what they did would not be punished according to the regulations. According to him, each pilot will be called for a conversation and those who repent will be forgiven.

Thus, the position of the Israeli government today remains quite difficult. The situation is aggravated by the attitude of the UN towards the activities carried out by the Israelis.

The UN annually adopts one and a half to two dozen anti-Israeli resolutions, in support of which the vast majority of its members automatically vote. In the Security Council, the only guardian of Israeli interests is the United States, using its veto power when necessary. Any proposed draft resolution on the Arab-Israeli conflict receives from 105 to 160 votes at the UN. As a rule, the United States, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and one or two other states vote “against”. The number of abstentions fluctuates different cases from three to sixty states.

There are many reasons for US support for Israel. The main driving factor in the policies of Bush and his team are people who understand America's long-term interests. And these interests are contradicted by the weakening of Israel. If Israel makes serious territorial concessions, it will become a country that cannot defend itself. Israel is the only stronghold of the American position in the Middle East.

Israel - US Ally in the fight against international terrorism, which is represented predominantly by Arab organizations in countries neighboring Israel.

Finally, the largest portion of the Jewish people today lives in the United States, with its representatives occupying many key positions in business and politics. And as long as there is an opportunity, they will support the state of Israel and their compatriots.

There is also a split in the Israeli side's relations with the enemy. The leader of the Israeli opposition Labor party, Shimon Peres, called for the creation of a Palestinian state, speaking at a rally marking the eighth anniversary of the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. I. Datskovsky, a member of the “Professors for a Strong Israel” movement, demonstrates the opposite position in his article: “If a bandit breaks into your private, purchased apartment and declares that this apartment belongs to him, seizes one of the rooms, terrorizes you, does not allow you to live , continuously threatens your life in the apartment, periodically kills members of your family and demands first to recognize his rights to the seized room and negotiate with him about the “peace” that he needs to prepare for the seizure of your entire apartment, then you cannot say that you have There is a conflict with this bandit. This is called aggression, banditry. And there is no need to negotiate “peace” with the invader, strengthen “mutual trust”, make “gestures of goodwill”, there is no need to delve into his problems and “fair demands” (or maybe he really has nowhere to live?), but need simply solve the problem by force or capitulate to the aggressor.”

The Minister of National Infrastructure, leader of the Israel Our Home party, Avigdor Lieberman, adheres to the same position: the government is obliged to declare the Palestinian Authority a nest of terrorism, dismember it into separate parts and destroy the entire infrastructure of terror, including all branches of the so-called “Palestinian police” and the headquarters of the “forces.” security."

There is also an intermediate position. Yuri Stern, Deputy Minister in the Ministry of the Prime Minister of Israel: “I believe that there should be a Palestinian autonomy, which should not have any security forces or army of its own and should not have external borders. What exists now suits us in principle, with the exception of the Palestinian security forces. We are obliged to remove Arafat, which, of course, does not mean his physical removal. His leadership of the Palestinians will never lead to anything good. The Palestinians only lose from this. Whoever succeeds him will be less dangerous than Arafat. If he’s an outright bandit, maybe it’ll be even easier to deal with him.”

Why does the majority of the Israeli side not accept the creation of a Palestinian state or even the existence of an armed Palestinian autonomy? Israel considers the main threat to itself to be the numerical superiority of Arab human resources and the small size of the territory of its state. The lack of depth in the territory makes Israel vulnerable in the event of a surprise enemy attack. In addition, 80% of its population and industry are concentrated in a narrow strip 90 km long and in some places only 50 km wide, which makes it possible to destroy them in one blow. Inequality with the Arabs in human resources forces Israel to keep most of its armed forces in reserve - 365 thousand people. and in the active army - 134 thousand people. In order to withstand the advance of superior enemy forces, Israel must mobilize a large part of the population into the active army. This could cause significant difficulties in the country's economy, including paralysis of industry and trade. Therefore, Israel fears a protracted war. In addition, the Israelis, due to their small numbers, are very sensitive to military losses.

Now about the situation in the Palestinian camp. Here, too, not everything is clear. As already mentioned, there are two currents among the Palestinians: for the fight and destruction of Israel and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The struggle between these forces is clearly not conducive to the constructive work of the Palestinian Authority.

As for Arafat's role, each of the mentioned forces accuses him, respectively, of indecisiveness and peace-lovingness or of radicalism and unwillingness to resolve the conflict.

On September 6, the Palestinian government led by Mahmoud Abass (Abu Mazen) resigned. Abu Mazen made the decision to resign when he realized that at least 55 out of 84 members of the legislative council were ready to pass a vote of no confidence in his government. A number of prominent Palestinian functionaries tried to persuade the prime minister to remain in his post. But he did not succumb to persuasion, saying that “he sees no possibility of agreeing with Arafat on a reasonable distribution of powers and that the situation is completely deadlock.” Commenting on Abu Mazen's resignation, Palestinian media emphasize that it did not cause much surprise. We should not forget that from his first steps as head of government, Arafat did not stop trying to weaken as much as possible the already shaky positions of the prime minister.

It is believed that Arafat was in a confrontation with Abass, which resulted in the latter’s resignation. It is also believed that Arafat seeks to maintain sole control over the PNA and make all decisions himself. Meanwhile, an opinion has emerged in the international community that Arafat is no longer coping with the situation and is hindering the peace process.

In forming the new government, Arafat tried to include all the forces that he thought he could control. He even admitted the possibility of including representatives of the radical organization Hamas in the new Palestinian government. “We would like to see everyone represented in the Palestinian government. political forces. So the government is open to everyone who is ready to act for the sake of the Palestinian people and peace in the region,” the Palestinian leader said. Apparently, Arafat did not take into account the statement made by the Hamas leadership earlier: “The Hamas movement was not part of any of the previous Palestinian governments and will not be part of the new one.”

The new head of government is Ahmed Qurei; in addition to him, the government includes 7 people. The government is called "emergency". In addition, Yasser Arafat introduced a state of emergency in the autonomous region. Almost immediately, Kurei found himself in the same situation as Abass. On October 10, Qurei asked Arafat to relieve him of his post as head of the cabinet. Among the problems facing the new prime minister are the inability of parliament to confirm him in this position and the battle for power with Yasser Arafat. The disagreement was temporarily resolved, and Kurei remained in his post. On October 28, Arafat instructed him to form a new government. Kurei had to do this as quickly as possible, since the term of office of the “emergency cabinet” was expiring next week. Some Palestinian observers doubted that Qurei would agree to form a new cabinet. They pointed to the ongoing disputes between Qurei and Arafat. But Qurei accepted Arafat's offer. However, a week later, Arafat himself provoked a delay in the formation of a new cabinet of ministers by protesting the choice of candidate for the Minister of Internal Affairs. Qurei met with Arafat on Tuesday but was unable to resolve their differences.

Currently, Qurei is still prime minister, but disputes between him and Arafat continue. And while Arafat is busy with these disputes, the peace process is virtually at a standstill, and terrorist attacks by Palestinian extremists continue, as do Israeli retaliatory operations.

Despite the crisis in the Palestinian leadership, Yasser Arafat's popularity among the population of the autonomy has reached its peak over the past 5 years. About 50% of Palestinians support his policies. This is evidenced by data from a survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion Research. Although the survey showed rather strange results: 85% of Palestinians believe it is necessary to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel, and at the same time, 75% of those surveyed approved of the terrorist attack committed in early October in Haifa.

The results of this survey look even more strange against the backdrop of Arafat's accusations of embezzling public money. A PA audit found that Arafat transferred $900 million in government funds to a bank account he owned. Most of this money, which is budget revenue, was invested in 69 commercial enterprises in Palestine and abroad. Arafat's opponents argue that the Palestinian Authority is mired in corruption. “At a time when the Palestinian people are starving and universities are in bankruptcy, the Palestinian Authority is transferring such amounts!” - Abdul Javan Saleh, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, is indignant.

Accusations against Arafat do not stop. Both sides of the conflict seem to think it's time to remove him. Israel says that it was terrorist organizations controlled by Arafat - Tanzim, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Battalions and others - that disrupted the ceasefire that was achieved with American participation after the June summit in Aqaba. Even Hamas and other Islamist organizations showed more restraint in this case than Arafat's supporters. It was their activity that prompted Hamas and Islamic Jihad to resume terrorist activities on the previous scale. Without eliminating Arafat as a symbol of this permissiveness, it is difficult to expect that the Palestinians will be able to understand such basic things as the danger of terror, the unacceptability of promoting violence, the obligation of political agreements, etc. Arafat seriously fears for his life - in both camps there are people who are bothered by him enough to physically eliminate him. And although Israel demands only the deportation of Arafat and declares that it does not intend to kill him, in the first half of October the press was full of reports about the assassination attempt on Arafat. The Palestinian Authority denied these reports. Arafat himself, despite the current situation, is not going to leave anywhere. “The Palestinian people elected me as their leader, the president of the autonomy. I will never give up my right to live in my homeland and fight for the legitimate rights of my people. We are ready for a truce, and have been for the last ten years. We still want to conclude an agreement with Israel on a complete ceasefire,” he said.

Now the situation in Palestine is still difficult. Israel is building a Security Wall, occupying Palestinian territories, destroying buildings, killing people (not always terrorists). The Palestinians are not laying down their arms - the terrorist attack in Haifa, the largest in recent times, killed 19 people. Negotiations constantly break down, the parties are too intolerant of each other. Mediation and assistance from other countries can only be effective if the parties listen to their recommendations.

Attempts to resolve the conflict.

One of the first attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict was the convening on October 30, 1991. in Madrid behind the initiative of the US and USSR Middle East Peace Conference. The governments of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan were invited to the conference. The Palestinians were invited as part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. The conference lasted only 3 days; for the first time, all parties to the conflict met at the negotiating table. The conference gave a significant impetus to the negotiation process in the Middle East.

In 1992 has developed favorable situation for the peace process - the Labor Party (Labor Party) won the parliamentary elections in Israel, putting forward the idea of ​​peace with the Arabs as a national priority. Israeli recognition of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people begins. The first agreement that was signed as part of the Middle East peace process was the Palestinian-Israeli Declaration of Principles. The declaration was signed on September 13, 1993. in Washington by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO executive committee member Mahmoud Abbas. The USA and Russia acted as witnesses. The logical continuation of the Declaration of Principles was the creation of the Palestinian Authority. May 4, 1994 In Cairo, representatives of the PLO and Israel signed an agreement, which introduced an autonomy regime in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. The agreement provided for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from these territories within a three-week period and the creation of the Palestinian Council. September 28, 1995 In Washington, an Interim Agreement was signed between the PLO and Israel on the extension of the power of the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians over 18 were given the right to take part in local government elections, which were to be held on January 20, 1996.

Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995 led to new parliamentary elections in Israel. For many, it came as a shock when Netanyahu, an opponent of the establishment of a Palestinian state, won the elections that took place on May 29, 1996. During the early years of Netanyahu's premiership, the peace process experienced many delays. January 15, 1997 A new agreement was signed on the gradual transfer of the city of Hebron to Palestinian control. However, the situation worsened already in the spring of 1997, when Israel announced the construction of a Jewish quarter in East Jerusalem. The Arab terrorists responded with new terrorist attacks.

1999 brought changes to the Middle East peace. In early parliamentary elections in Israel on May 17, 1999, the party of Ehud Barak won, with whom many pinned hopes of accelerating the peace process. September 4, 1999 In the Egyptian town of Sharm al-Sheikh, a new agreement was signed between Israel and the PLO. In accordance with the agreement, September 13, 1999 Negotiations on permanent status, which were interrupted in May 1996, reopened. Negotiations were conducted on the most complex and controversial issues, namely:

1. The status of Jerusalem.

2. Palestinian refugees.

3. Israeli settlements.

4. Security measures.

5. Borders.

At the beginning of July 2000 US President Bill Clinton proposed holding a decisive trilateral summit. Analysts assessed the likelihood of success of the summit as minimal, because The most difficult issues still remained unresolved, such as the status of Jerusalem, the future of Jewish settlements, the border, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. However, the summit still took place on July 11. Negotiations are stuck on choosing a scheme for transferring land to the Palestinians. Barak was ready to agree that up to 80-90% of the West Bank would go to them, but insisted that several large Jewish settlements would remain there. Arafat agreed, but in return demanded that part of the Israeli land itself be transferred to the Palestinians. The Israeli delegation categorically disagreed with this. On July 25, the press received an official statement that the summit ended without results.

Peace process 1991-2000 ended with the outbreak of the Palestinian Intifada in 2000. From that time on, both sides refused to negotiate, and if someone agreed, the negotiations broke down. The signing of peace agreements was made impossible by terrorist attacks by Palestinian extremists and operations by the Israeli army.

In December 2001, an attempt was made to organize a meeting of the leaders of the conflicting parties under the auspices of the EU. The Europeans' attempt to reconcile the Israelis with the Palestinians ended in failure. The meeting between Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat did not take place. The Israeli prime minister said that he would not meet with the Palestinian leader at all.

The role of the UN international organization, which could help resolve the conflict, came down to the adoption of resolutions, which Israel often ignored, as did Palestine. In many cases, UN anti-Israel resolutions repeated the same language year after year.

The Haaretz newspaper provided a list of UN resolutions on the Middle East adopted in 2002 alone.

ABOUT further work UN Implementation Commission inalienable rights Palestinian people;
...on the further work of the Palestine Department in the UN Secretariat;
...on the further implementation of the UN special propaganda program on the problem of Palestine;
...about a peaceful solution to the problem of Palestine;
...to condemn the states that have moved their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem;
...in support of the demand for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria and the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the border line on June 4, 1967;
...in condemnation of the Israeli decision to annex the Golan Heights (1981);
...on the further work of the UN Commission of Inquiry into Israel's actions in the occupied territories;
...condemning Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights;
...about the need to stop Israeli actions that violate human rights in the occupied territories;
...on the further activities of the United Nations Relief and Employment Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA);
...on the right of Palestinian refugees to economic dividends from the property they left behind;
...on the 1967 right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes;
...to condemn Israel's interference with UNRWA.

Palestine has again contacted the UN several times this year. The current dispute, which the PA hopes to resolve with UN assistance, concerns Israel's construction of a security wall. Following an investigation into the situation, UN Special Observer for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories John Dugard prepared a report alleging that by constructing a fortified security wall on the border with the PA, Israel would annex significant Palestinian territory in the West Bank. “Available information leaves no doubt that Israel is constructing in illegally annexed territories,” the report said. “Such annexation of territories is considered by international law as an illegal seizure of land.” On October 1, the UN, in its human rights report, called on the world's governments to condemn Israel for building the wall.

In Israel itself, the attitude towards the wall is ambiguous. Many say the wall will further complicate relations with the Palestinians, while others - those who support the government - believe that the barrier will solve the security problem in Israel.

On October 22, the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia voted against a resolution condemning Israel's construction of the so-called separation wall in the occupied Palestinian territories. 144 states, including Russia, spoke in support of the resolution, while 12 countries abstained. The UN also called on Israelis and Palestinians to fulfill their obligations under the road map, a peace plan for resolving the Middle East conflict developed by Russia, the US, the UN and the EU. The resolution calls on the Palestinian authorities to make “significant efforts to arrest, disrupt and limit the actions of individuals and groups carrying out and planning acts of violence” and calls on Israel “not to take any actions that undermine trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians and extrajudicial killings.”

On the same day, the Israeli authorities promised to continue the construction of a barrier wall in the West Bank, despite the resolution of the UN General Assembly. As Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, Israel intends to continue building the fence to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Despite the disputes and problems that arise during attempts to resolve the conflict, there are still some positive results. The parties are ready to make concessions, albeit small ones. Since September 24, Israel has allowed 15,500 Palestinian workers and 5,000 traders and businessmen to enter its territory. At the same time, 2,000 Palestinian Christians will be able to visit the city of Bethlehem in the West Bank. Arafat confirmed his readiness to conclude an agreement with Israel on a complete ceasefire: “We are ready for a truce, and for the last ten years. We still want to conclude an agreement with Israel on a complete ceasefire. However, we cannot do without international observers who would monitor compliance with such an agreement.”

Russia, the EU and the United States proposed to the parties a plan they had developed for resolving the conflict, the “Road Map”. According to the Road Map, the process of a phased settlement of the Middle East conflict should be completed by 2005 with the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) expressed his readiness to begin negotiations with Israel on the implementation of the Road Map peace plan. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, the head of the “emergency transitional government” of the autonomy called on Israel to give the Palestinian leadership a chance to “prevent a further escalation of violence in the Palestinian territories.” “We are ready to fulfill our obligations under the Palestinian-Israeli settlement plan if Israel also adheres to its obligations “- emphasized Ahmed Qurei.

Sharon is ready to announce his consent to the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2004 - first in the Gaza Strip, from where Israeli troops will be withdrawn and Jewish settlements will be dismantled. Of course, this will happen only if the autonomy authorities fulfill a number of conditions. Terrorist organizations will be disarmed and their leaders arrested, and hostile activities against the Jewish state will be stopped. Ariel Sharon said that his country will implement the plan " road map“Only after the change of Palestinian leadership. “I believe that a Palestinian leadership will emerge that will fight terrorism, that will oppose violence and incitement,” the prime minister said. “Once this happens, the Palestinians will find in us their most serious partner, and together we will implement the road map,” Sharon said. “If we are convinced that the Palestinians really want peace, we are ready to make big concessions,” Sharon stressed.

Such statements give hope that the peace process in Palestine will finally resume. On the other hand, at the same time that these peace-loving statements were made, several terrorist attacks were organized by the Palestinians, and Israel announced the mobilization of reservists and continued to expel relatives of terrorists. The Israeli raid in Rafah dates back to the same time - 11 Palestinians were killed. In response, the Palestinians declared that they would fight Israel by any means necessary and killed three Israeli soldiers. The Israeli Air Force struck missile strike in the Gaza Strip - 13 people died. In Gaza, the Israelis blew up 3 high-rise buildings and killed 4 Palestinians. Similar events accompanied all past “peace” initiatives of the parties. It is unlikely that anyone will want to sign peace agreements after this.

The Israeli opposition made another attempt at a peaceful settlement. Together with moderate PA representatives, the Geneva Agreement was developed - secret plan peace settlement in the Middle East. This 60-page document was prepared for two years in deep secrecy with the support of Switzerland. The presentation of the document was scheduled for November 4, but it became known that the celebrations were postponed to November 20.

It is known that the Geneva Agreements resolve all sensitive issues related to the Middle East conflict. The boundaries of the future Palestinian state are spelled out in detail. But the current Israeli government has criticized the agreements. Prime Minister Sharon called them “dangerous.” The environment also criticized Switzerland American President George Bush. According to Advisor to US Defense Secretary Richard Perle, it is impossible to support “a handful of people in opposition to the legitimate government.”

In another attempt at a peace settlement, the radical Palestinian movement Hamas has agreed to a new ceasefire agreement with Israel. Hamas is ready to publicly announce a truce “if Israel commits to stop all types of aggression against the Palestinian people.”

In addition, according to Palestinian sources, a meeting between Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz will take place in the near future. However, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations will begin only if the Palestinian Legislative Council approves the new composition of the Qurei cabinet. During the expected negotiations, the Palestinian side plans to convey to Israel a plan to ensure security in the Palestinian territories, as well as demand the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops from Palestinian cities.

President of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat, in turn, gave full consent to the resumption of negotiations after Israel lifted a number of restrictions on visits to its territory by residents of the autonomy.

Thus, attempts to resolve the conflict are still being made, despite the difficult situation in Palestine. True, so far such attempts have not yielded any results. This is understandable - the parties continue to insist on their basic demands and are ready to make concessions in small things, but not in the main things. As long as this situation persists, everything will continue existing problems. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for a long time and the current situation does not allow us to hope for its quick resolution - too many interests are intertwined in the small Palestinian territory. Shustef B. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (forgotten facts). http://migdal.ru/article.php?artid=2733. 08/07/2003

Terekhov A., Kapitonov K. Makhmud left - Akhmed remained. The peace process in the Middle East has been disrupted. www.ng.ru

For many decades, the Arab-Israeli conflict remains one of the most explosive among the Middle Eastern “hot spots”, the escalation of events around which could at any time lead to a new regional war, and also significantly affect the system international relations generally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the war doomsday(1973) Iran provided small and covert support to Israel in the form of fighter jets and other military equipment. The war ended in Israel's victory, and the defeated Arab OPEC members imposed an oil embargo on countries supporting Israel and greatly inflated the price of an oil barrel, leading to a state of "oil shock" in the world.

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

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

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

In 1995, Iran was subject to sanctions from the United States, which were expressed by a ban on arms supplies, to which Russia joined. Only by 2001 did Russia restore supplies.

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

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

In December 2003, Iran signed it in Vienna at the IAEA Headquarters. From that moment on, the international community was drawn into the discussion of the Iranian nuclear program. This document gives the IAEA the opportunity to agree to the implementation of Iran's nuclear programs. Iran has demonstrated complete openness in its actions regarding international obligations.

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

While Khatami was in power, he made possible attempts to get the IAEA to stop discriminating against Iran and recognize its right to conduct nuclear research within the framework of the NPT, while pointing out that, in accordance with this treaty, Iran has the right to carry out full nuclear cycle, including uranium enrichment. However, over time, it became clear that the more persistently Iran proved that it was right, the more irreconcilable the position of the West became, which Israel fully shared. Therefore, starting in 2005, Iran sharply tightened its position and again attracted the attention of the world community to Israel as the owner of real nuclear weapons.

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

Today Iran keeps the whole world in suspense. There is an open information war between Iran and Israel and the United States. New sanctions come into force, the UN receives new IAEA reports, but this only leads to increased isolation of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad and new strength develops nuclear potential. Every year the IAEA collects new evidence in favor of Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Iran continues to insist that the program is peaceful. The Iranian nuclear program is being discussed everywhere. In early 2012, Israel began discussions with the United States about invading Iran and bombing nuclear facilities. To this end, negotiations are regularly held. Israel argues its position by saying that it fears for its future fate, so it is forced to act radically.

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

Iran's nuclear program haunts both Israel and the entire world community.

December 19, 2012 Israel launches an air strike on several sites in Iran believed to be part of the Iranian nuclear program infrastructure. Within 30 minutes after the Israeli attack, the Iranian air force carried out a somewhat unsuccessful air raid on a number of Israeli cities - Tel Aviv, Haifa, Dimona, Beersheba. Several bombs also fall within the city limits of Jerusalem.

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

If the conflict continues, colossal damage is expected due to the bombing of nuclear facilities and military operations on the territory of Iran in particular, where the civilian population will be primarily at risk. This also applies to other countries in the Middle East region, which will subsequently be involved in the conflict. It is very important now to prevent the conflict from growing to a regional scale, much less a global one.

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

On December 19, 2012 at 6:00 am, Israel began conducting targeted strikes on some Iranian targets, namely Iranian nuclear facility Parchin, which is located 30 km southeast of Tehran. Parchin was not chosen as a target by chance. It was at this military base that IAEA inspectors and Israeli intelligence discovered the development of nuclear weapons. Iran began enriching uranium to 20%, which is absolutely unacceptable. This situation undermines the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, because Enriched uranium within 5% is quite enough to maintain the operation of nuclear power plants.

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

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

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

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

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

Sotskova V.P.

Literature

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

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