After his period of visiting professorship carried out in Rome, at La Sapienza University, Edy Cohen – researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center, Bar-Ilan University, one of the most popular Arabic-speaker Israeli academic and expert of the Arab-Israeli conflict – gave to Andrea Carteny an interview for Geopolitica.info about the historical roots and the present conflict between Arabs and Israelis in Near East.
- Edy Cohen, you are very popular in TV broadcasting and in the social media and internet (like X-former Twitter), because Arabic speaker: in fact, you were born and grown up in an Arab country, reaching Israel only after you escape anti-Jewish massacre: with this background, you become a very important and popular academic and expert of anti-Semitism in Arab-Muslim countries, as well of Arab-Israeli conflict. With this knowledge, you are often interviewed by Arab media. Dominating Arabic – as your mother tongue – you are a very appreciated scholar in the Israelian academic environment, studying and publishing inedited documents in Arabic, concerning anti-Semitic ideology and policies in Palestine during WW2. For all these reason Geopolitica.info is glad to have this interview with you, thanking for your availability to do that in English.
I thank you for this opportunity. My monthly period of research in Rome was marked by the tragedy of 7 October: I found a great solidarity, from colleagues and friends, but with the military operation of Israeli Defense Force in Gaza I felt also the growing anti-Israelian reaction of a part of the Italian public opinion. I lived in the first line how is far from Europe the question of the security of Israel, something that is daily condition for Israeli people, Jewish or Arab, or Christian citizens of Israel. In all the case I was welcomed in Rome, by the University, by all kind of friend of Rome, and by the Jewish community and the B’nai B’rith fellows: I would like to thank them for the good time passed in Rome. I hope I will be able to invite them to live these same moments in Israel, when the war will be finally ended and my country will start to live in a peaceful time.
- Thank you Edy. Get start with our questions. The Palestinian question seems to be back to the Jewish question in these days, again with international political Anti-Zionist positions. Let us ask you: could you give us any element of the cultural background of Muslim-Arab intellectuals and public opinion, as political reason of the contemporary Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist approach in Muslim countries? What are the roots of Anti-Judaism in the Islamic civilization?
Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist feelings in many Muslim countries have deep historical roots, shaped by a mix of theological, geopolitical, historical, and ideological factors. It is crucial to examine the period both before and after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 to understand the evolution of these sentiments. Before the foundation of Israel there are different periods. The first period, early 7th century, is when the prophet Mohammad began to preach his new faith, the Jewish tribes refused to adopt the Islam. For that reason the army of Mohammad exterminated and exiled thousands of Jews. The second one is the Colonial Legacy: the decline of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent colonization of the Middle East by European powers contributed to a sense of humiliation and powerlessness among Arab and Muslim populations. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, fueled apprehensions and anti-Jewish sentiments. The British who promised the holy land for the Jews are “the friends” of the Americans and they all are the friends of the Jews. That is the same period of the Arab-Muslim rise of Nationalism and Identity: the rise of Arab nationalism in the early 20th century in Egypt sought to unite Arab-speaking peoples against foreign intervention. The establishment of a Jewish homeland was perceived by some as a challenge to Arab identity and sovereignty. Around the foundation of Israel it’s happening the Palestinian Displacement: the “Nakba” of 1948, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, intensified anti-Zionist feelings and expressions. This fueled a narrative of dispossession and resistance, contributing to the development of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist ideologies.
- The creation of the State of Israel radically changed the context. What happened after the 14th May 1948?
The Arab-Israeli Conflict starts with the declaration of the State of Israel: The Arab-Israeli wars, particularly the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, further entrenched anti-Zionist sentiments. These conflicts heightened a sense of injustice and reinforced the perception of Israel as an occupier. During the second half of 20th century, we see Cold War Dynamics: during the Cold War, Israel aligned itself with Western powers, while some Arab nations, influenced by socialist and anti-imperialist ideologies, gravitated towards the Soviet bloc. This geopolitical alignment contributed to anti-Zionist stances in the context of broader international power dynamics. Aside of this phenomenon, we have to consider the Religious Dimensions: In addition to political factors, religious considerations play a dominant role. Jerusalem, a city of significant religious importance to Muslims, became a focal point of contention, adding a religious dimension to the political conflict.
Our time express Contemporary Dynamics: by one side, Global Solidarity Movements emerged. Issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have garnered international attention, leading to the formation of global solidarity movements. Some Muslim countries align themselves with these movements, viewing anti-Zionism as a form of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. We see the role of Media Influence: Media portrayal and dissemination of information play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. Negative depictions of Israeli policies and actions, combined with historical narratives of dispossession, contribute to anti-Zionist sentiments. Last but not least, there is the Leadership Influence: Political leaders in Muslim countries often frame the Palestinian issue in the context of resistance against occupation, gaining public support through anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Understanding the historical context and multifaceted factors influencing Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist sentiments is crucial for a nuanced analysis of the complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- The abolition of the Caliphate, the foundation of the Muslim brotherhood, the Anti-Judaism of the Gran Muftì of Jerusalem: how these factors affected to the present situation in Middle East?
The abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk marked the end of a centuries-old institution that held religious and political significance for Muslims. The move was part of Atatürk’s broader secularization efforts in Turkey. That has an important effect for his impact on Pan-Islamism: The abolition weakened the concept of a unified Islamic state, fostering a more fragmented political landscape in the Muslim world. This void contributed to the rise of nationalist movements in various Muslim-majority countries. Contemporary Implications are the absence of a central religious-political authority, influencing the diversity of political systems in the Middle East, from secular republics to Islamist regimes.
The Foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, aimed to revive Islamic values and resist Western influence. It evolved into a transnational Islamist movement with branches across the Middle East. The effects are important, firstly for the influence on Political Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology to fight the West and to prevent to establish a Jewish state in mandatory Palestine has significantly impacted political Islam, contributing to the growth of Islamist movements and parties throughout the region. Secondly, for the political Activism: The Brotherhood’s engagement in politics has influenced the dynamics of governance, with its members participating in elections and, in some cases, gaining political power.
The Anti-Judaism of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the 1920s-1940s, played a key role in promoting anti-Jewish sentiments, mainly for his Collaboration with Nazi Germany. Al-Husseini worked with the Nazis during World War II, promoting anti-Semitic propaganda and recruiting Muslims to the Waffen-SS, planning the final solution also in Palestine. On this topic a couple of years ago I published (in Hebrew) a book: The Mufti and the Jews. The Involvement of Haj Amin al-Husseini in the Holocaust and His War on the Jews of the Arab Countries 1935-1946 (edited by Ariel Research Center for Defense and Communications). Here is his main inheritance in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: the Grand Mufti’s anti-Judaism contributed to a climate of hostility, leaving a legacy that has, at times, complicated efforts for Arab-Israeli reconciliation.
So, we have many Overall Impact on the Present Situation.
By one side
The abolition of the Caliphate created a vacuum in political and religious authority, influencing diverse political systems in the Middle East.
Then, – The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology has shaped the landscape of political Islam, impacting governance and political movements.
Finally, – The anti-Judaism of the Grand Mufti contributed to historical tensions, underscoring the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Understanding these historical factors is crucial to understand the present political, religious, and social dynamics in the Middle East. It emphasizes the interconnection of historical events and contemporary challenges in the region.
- The Palestinian refugees is still one the greatest and most sensitive problem: what is the different between the Jewish refugees’ question and policies carried out by Israel to arrange that, and the Palestinian one in the history of this region until today?
After World War II, a significant wave of Jewish refugees emerged, including survivors of the Holocaust and Jews expelled from Arab countries. For their absorption and Resettlement, Israel, starting with 1948, adopted policies focused on the absorption and resettlement of Jewish refugees. That meant to provide housing, education, and support for integration of these people into Israeli society: you cannot be a refugee if you have a state. Israel opened its door to all the Jewish in the world. During 1949-50, Israel conducted airlift operations, such as the “Magic Carpet” Operation, to bring Jewish immigrants, particularly from Yemen and other Middle East countries, to the newly established state. Consequently, the Integration Policies involved many juridical provisions and institutional tools: among them Them, the Israel’s Law of Return in 1950 granted to the worldwide Jews the right to immigrate to Israel, contributing to the integration of Jewish refugees into the Israeli society.
The policies for the Palestinian Refugees were radically different. The Arab-Israeli War and the creation of Israel in 1948 led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, that is commonly known as the Nakba (catastrophe). An agency of the UN was created to face this problem, the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency): established in 1949, this international institution provides humanitarian assistance and services exclusively to the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian demand for the right of return for refugees to their pre-1948 home remains a key aspect of the conflict until today. This has been a source of contention in peace negotiations: never any official agreement was signed to accept back Palestinian refugees in Israel.
So, since the Nakba, many refugee camps – with the aid of UNRWA – hosted Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries and the territory under Arab control, with limited rights and restricted opportunities for integration.
In a Comparative Analysis, the Israeli policies and the Arab ones about the refugees’ question can be synthetized as “Integration vs. Right of Return”:
– The Jewish refugee policy focused on integrating refugees into the newly established state, while the Palestinian policy, influenced by the “right of return”, has often maintained the refugee status as a symbol of the unresolved conflict, even after 80 year from the Nakba. The international community, through UNRWA, has been involved in providing assistance to Palestinian refugees, reflecting a multilateral approach. In contrast, the Jewish refugee policy was largely implemented domestically. The policies have led to different trajectories for Jewish immigrants, who became citizens of Israel, and Palestinian refugees, many of whom remain stateless with unresolved political status.
Understanding the different approaches and the historical development of these policies on refugees is essential to understand their impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing challenges in the region.
- PLO and Hamas are the main actors of the Palestinian side: what is the difference, if there is one, what is the balance between them?
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas are prominent actors within the Palestinian political landscape, each with distinct historical origins, ideologies and approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Understanding the differences between the two organizations provides insights into the complexities of Palestinian politics.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was Founded in 1964, emerging as a secular nationalist movement with the goal of liberating Palestine and establishing a Palestinian state. Initially led by Yasser Arafat, the PLO went through various phases, engaging in armed struggle, diplomatic initiatives, and political maneuvers. Over time, the PLO shifted its stance and officially recognized Israel’s right to exist in the late 1980s, leading to the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. This marked a move towards a two-state solution. With this new Political Engagement, the PLO transitioned from an armed resistance movement to a more politically engaged entity. It established the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) as a result of the Oslo Accords: that recognized Israel with limited self-governance in certain areas.
Different story is about Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement). It was established in 1987 during the First Intifada and emerged as a Palestinian Islamist movement with a strong emphasis on armed resistance against Israeli “occupation”. Hamas’s founding charter rejects the existence of the State of Israel and envisions an Islamic state in historic Palestine. Unlike the PLO’s transformation into a political entity, Hamas maintains a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which has been involved in armed conflicts with Israel and recently the 7 of October massacres. In addition to its military activities, Hamas has gained popularity through its provision of social services and charities, contributing to its grassroots support.
- How could we have a balance between PLO and Hamas? Could we consider the strength and the capability of influence, of the PLO and of Hamas, in the domestic territory and in the international context?
Balancing PLO and Hamas: The PLO historically represented the overarching Palestinian political leadership, engaging in diplomatic efforts on the international stage. At the opposite, Hamas has often been excluded from mainstream political processes due to its refusal to recognize Israel. While the PLO has engaged in negotiations with Israel, Hamas has been more resistant to diplomatic initiatives that involve the recognition of Israel. This divergence in strategies has influenced the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: the PLO met with the Israelis but Hamas refused to do so.
Also in the Internal Palestinian Politics, The relationship between the PLO and Hamas has been marked by periods of tension and cooperation, reflecting the broader complexities within Palestinian politics. The challenge of achieving a unified Palestinian stance has implications for the effectiveness of negotiations and resistance efforts. The PLO controls the West Bank, Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas Took Over Gaza in June 2007 by military forces and killed many PLO members.
At the international level, the PLO, as the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people, has secured recognition from several countries and international bodies. Hamas, by the other side, is designated as a terrorist organization by some countries, limiting its international legitimacy.
Understanding the nuanced differences and the balance between the PLO and Hamas is crucial for grasping the multifaceted nature of Palestinian political dynamics and their impact on the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- The present war is the last phase of a longstanding conflict: what is in your opinion the perspective, aiming to reach one time a peaceful balance?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, characterized by a complex history of political, territorial, and identity-based disputes, has endured for decades. Achieving a peaceful balance requires a nuanced understanding of the challenges and potential perspectives that could pave the way for resolution.
The two-state solution remains a widely endorsed framework for resolving the conflict. It envisions the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian state alongside a secure and recognized Israel. This perspective, even if practically already ended in an impasse, is now challenged by the effects of the 7 of October Massacres: many Israelis now are oriented to refuse to accept the Two-State Solution and, eventually, to annex parts of Gaza for security purposes. In the past, issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem have been persistent stumbling blocks. Political will and trust are essential to overcome these challenges.
In Israel now very few people are talking today about Reaching a peaceful balance because actually we are in war. It is very early to determine who will win the current war, now we entered in the second phase of this war: Israel has set as one of its goals to annihilate Hamas and neutralize the threat from Gaza. As mentioned, there is currently no diplomatic channel with the Palestinians, very difficult dialogue with the Palestinian Authority and certainly not at all with Hamas. At the moment there is no political horizon and only a military approach. Israel entered Gaza as a result of the October 7 massacre and occupied large parts of the northern Gaza Strip. The goal of the Israeli army, as defined by the Israeli political leaders, is to occupy the entire strip and destroy Hamas, therefore it is very early to talk about a peaceful or political horizon for this conflict. More than that, the question that is asked in Israel today is: What will happen the day after in Gaza? who is supposed to run Gaza tomorrow? The Palestinian Authority, or Egypt? UN forces, or Nato..? For sure, Israel will not allow a terrorist state in Gaza again.
In conclusion, achieving a peaceful balance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict necessitates to eliminate the Palestinian terrorism, first destroying Hamas in Gaza.
