*This is meant only as a broad look at the history between Israel and Palestine between 1972 and 2023*
On September 5, 1972, members of a terrorist organization, Black September, ambushed the Olympic Village in Munich. Armed with stolen keys and athlete uniforms, the eight Palestinian men found their way to the temporary home of Israeli athletes. The pre-dawn assault ended with nine in captivity and two dead.
The following day, West German police attempted and failed to rescue the nine hostages being held at the Fürstenfeldbruck airport. All nine hostages and one police officer were murdered. Police killed five terrorists.
The Olympic Games, which were intended to reunite Germany with the world after World War II, continued.
Commence “Operation Wrath of God”
Conflict between Israel and Palestine is, well, complex. There has been both war and peace but the Munich Massacre marked a turning point in a televised world. For its part, Israel responded emphatically with “Operation Wrath of God,” which lasted nine years. “Operation Wrath of God,” was a dark op that targeted key Black September leaders responsible for the massacre at Olympic Village.
In the face of Israel’s response, the average Palestinians became increasingly more nationalistic with a smattering of distinct groups coming together to form the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Israel's air force bombed Palestinian strongholds in Syria and Lebanon prompted members of the PLO to mail bombs mailed to Israeli Embassy in London, which assassinated an Israeli diplomat. In Paris, Amsterdam. Montreal and New York similar bombs were diffused with no loss of life.
The United States used its United Nations Security Council veto power to squelch a resolution calling for an end to Israel's retaliation. The on-going tension led to the Yom Kippur War (1973) after Israel faced a surprise attack from Egypt and Syria. Finally, in 1978, the Camp David Accords, brokered by the Jimmy Carter administration, led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. It was a significant diplomatic achievement but it didn’t settle matters.
The Intifada’s
The decade of the 1980s was marked by grassroots uprisings known as the First Intifada (1987-1993). Palestinian frustration over Israeli occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political representation ignited widespread protests and civil disobedience.
Israel responded to the uprising with harsh suppression efforts, which unsurprisingly, led to further violence and casualties on both sides. The Intifada did bring international attention to the plight of Palestinians and shifted the focus toward seeking a negotiated settlement.
Enter Yasser Arafat.
Arafat was a PLO terrorist who wanted to rebrand himself as a statesman. His motive for the rebranding is a debate for another day.
Senator George McGovern, who had chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, helped establish the Middle East Policy Council, which some considered a slight to Israel. McGovern viewed his work toward a more peaceful Middle East as a duty to Israel rather than a betrayal of Israel.
I raised my right hand to serve in the World’s Finest Navy just as President George H.W. Bush was chasing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. While I agree, America paid a high price for the Bush Administration’s decision to allow Hussein to return to Iraq, chasing him out of Kuwait did bring the Middle East together in search of regional peace.
The Oslo Accords were considered pivotal and led to a 1993 Israel - Palestinian framework for peace and mutual recognition. The Accords led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and granted limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“To be sure, there were times when Arafat tried. In 1996, for example, after a series of Hamas bus bombings in Israel, when it looked likely that Bibi Netanyahu would defeat Shimon Peres in the upcoming elections, Arafat confronted Hamas and began systematically to uproot its terrorist infrastructure. Unfortunately, the effort was at best sporadic. It was never sustained. But it did serve to demonstrate that Arafat had the capability to live up to his September 1993 commitment.” Brookings Institute
The good will between Israel and Palestine didn’t last long. The 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin orchestrated by a right-wing extremists caused a diplomatic breakdown of the two-state solution negotiations.
The early 2000s saw the eruption of the Second Intifada (2000-2005) that led to intense violence, suicide bombings, and military operations. Both sides suffered heavy casualties. In face of on-going destruction, Israel built a wall. Palestinians saw it as a land grab.
“I consider myself a dependable longtime supporter of the State of Israel. But I regard Netanyahu’s policies as bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians, bad for the Arabs, and bad for the United States.”
The failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000, where negotiations between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak collapsed, further deepened mistrust. The withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005, gave Hamas room to flourish.
Throughout the 2010s, there were periodic flare-ups of violence, particularly between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The 2014 Gaza War was bloody and destructive. Over time, Israeli West Bank settlements continued to expand. Finally, the Arab Spring normalized relations with Israel and some Arab nations. However, the Israel and Palestinian relations remained troubled.
The Trump Administrations decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017 further fueled tensions and protests.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas, with control over Gaza, did the unthinkable.
What’s next for the relationship between Israel and Palestine can’t be known until history has rendered its verdict. But what we do know, is we have passed terror and destruction, hate and bloodshed onto a new generation.
McGovern: In His Own Words (1972)
“Since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948, Americans of all political beliefs have supported the people of Israel in their struggle to build lives of dignity for themselves and their children. Israel has been an issue that united Republicans and Democrats. It was something both major parties could agree on—not an issue on which to appeal for .votes, with one candidate seeking to outbid the other by vaunting his support of Israel.
This year, however, the Republican Party has insisted on misrepresenting my position on Israel to make it seem that I am no friend of that country. But the record speaks for itself. My commitment to Israel is a moral commitment that began with my entry into public life in 1957. It continues to this day. It is not a function of cold war, balance-of-power politics. It did not begin with the massive Soviet presence in Egypt. It will not end with the Soviet departure from Egypt.
My position on Jerusalem has also been misrepresented. In March, 1971, in a discussion with a group of Nieman Fellows, I cited the internationalization of Jerusalem. as one of several possibilities that had been raised concerning the Middle East. It was not my position then, nor is it my position now. My opponents know this; yet they continue to attack me for a policy I never advocated. I have publicly stated that “Jerusalem should continue to. be administered by Israel with international guarantees of open access to people of all faiths.” I have called: on the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move our embassy there. That is the platform of the Democratic Party. It was put there by my delegates. I stand by it. My opponents have also chosen to take out of context a statement I made two and one-half years ago suggesting that Israel should not use aircraft sold by the U.S. to extend the area of combat in the Middle East. The Republicans have consistently omitted the key sentence in the same paragraph in which I called on the Arab states to end their formal state of war with Israel—as a condition for Israeli restraint. Since the Arabs have not agreed to end the state of war in the area, I do not expect the Israelis to curtail whatever military activities may be necessary to defend themselves.
The Republicans have also circulated the rumor that members of my staff hold anti-Israel positions. Gordon Weil, a longtime Senatorial aide, fully supports the strongly pro-Israel position of the Democratic Party and its candidate for the presidency. Richard Stearns also agrees with my position. It is true that Mr. Stearns, as an official of the National Student Association, did allow his name to be signed to two pro-Arab advertisements, five years ago, when he was 22 years. old. Events since 1967 have convinced Stearns that his earlier position was wrong. As he said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “‘I fully sympathize with and support the party’s position on Israel and the Middle East. I fully support Senator McGovern’s position.” The Republicans have also suggested that my plan to cut the waste from our military budget would somehow have a deleterious effect on Israeli security. Yet anyone who reads my proposed military budget will see that I specifically exempt NATO and the Middle East from military reductions. My program calls for maintaining the heart of the ‘Sixth Fleet intact. The additional escort vessels and submarines called for in my proposal will actually increase the defensive capability of the fleet to respond to an emergency in the Middle East. No less an expert than Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque, a former commander of the Sixth Fleet and now director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, recently wrote: ‘The capability to respond effectively may actually be increased under the McGovern plan.’
The real concern of Israel's friends is the Rogers plan—still official U.S. policy in the Middle East—which calls for only “insubstantial alterations” of the pre-Six Day War borders. For three years the Nixon Administration withheld vitally needed Phantom Jets from Israel while it pressured Israel to submit to an imposed settlement that would require withdrawal to the old boundaries, put Jerusalem under joint Jordanian-Israel rule and give Arabs the right of repatriation to Israel. Golda Meir called the Rogers plan “suicide” “for Israel. I have publicly opposed every feature of the Rogers plan.
The Republicans have not been ‘content merely to distort my position with regard to Israel. They have even tried to call into question my belief in basic American principles of equal opportunity, the merit system and freedom from discrimination.
I reject the quota system as detrimental to American society. As I wrote to the president of the American Jewish Committee: “I believe it is both necessary and possible to open doors that have long been shut to minority group members without violating basic principles of non-discrimination and without abandoning the merit principle.”
I understand the legitimate and honest fears that grip many American Jews about quotas. These fears are based on recent actions of the Nixon Administration. It was President Nixon’s Department of Health, Education and Welfare that demanded that the City University of New York furnish the race, sex, age and title of every faculty member by name—or risk losing Federal research funds. It was the Nixon Administration that withheld millions of dollars from Columbia and other universities because they were not proceeding rapidly enough under the HEW “affirmative action” program.
In an effort to divert attention from their own efforts to impose quotas on universities, the Republicans have chosen to attack me on the basis of the new rules governing representation at the Democratic Convention. I am sure that the Jewish community will not be deceived by a false comparison between a convention, on the one hand, and employment and education, on the other. The McGovern Commission developed, means through which the Democratic Party would insure the representation of groups that had been excluded in the past—particularly women, racial minorities, and youth. The Commission largely succeeded, for the Democratic Convention of 1972 was the most representative political gathering in the history of our nation. (I understand there were about 300 Jewish delegates at the Democratic convention, compared with 50 at the Republican convention.)
These are just some of the issues that have been raised in the campaign. There is so much more that needs to be debated. There is the plight of Soviet Jewry, about which my opponent has been conspicuously silent. Indeed, at this time of crisis for Soviet Jewry, Richard Nixon is seeking to grant trade concessions to the USSR.
My position on these issues represents a commitment to social conscience that is shared by nearly all in the Jewish community. I am saddened that the distortions of my views by my opponents have required an expenditure of time and energy that could be better spent discussing the future of our country. That, after all, is the major issue.
I do not believe that there is such a thing as a monolithic Jewish vote. Yet, traditionally, most Jews have voted for candidates and parties that represented not special privilege but the rights of all people. They have been on the side of those who followed the path of peace, who pursued justice, who chose life.
Let us choose life together, and let us rededicate ourselves to the task of making our nation once again true to the principles of justice and freedom, mercy and brotherhood.”
Great piece on a very complex situation! 👏👏👏