In his book “Divided,” author Tim Marshall dedicates a chapter to the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Titled “Israel and Palestine,” the chapter begins by describing the stark contrast between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, separated by a 26-foot-high concrete wall topped with barbed wire and watchtowers.
Crossing the border through these concrete sections is a disheartening experience, even though they only make up 3% of the entire 440-mile-long barrier between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. The concrete sections, placed near urban areas to prevent sniper fire, are more visually striking than the barbed-wire fence that makes up the majority of the barrier. Regardless of what it’s called, the barrier remains a symbol of the seemingly intractable dispute between Israel and Palestine.
The concrete sections have become a canvas for artists like Banksy, who has painted murals on the Palestinian side, and Naji al-Ali, who created the iconic image of Handala, a barefoot refugee boy who will not turn around until there is justice for Palestinians. Banksy took his involvement further by opening the “Walled Off Hotel” in Bethlehem, with rooms facing the wall and a museum outlining the history of the conflict.
The existence and purpose of the wall are contested. Palestinians see it as a land grab, while Israel cites security reasons. The border has been a source of violent conflict since Israel’s establishment in 1948, with the Six-Day War in 1967 leading to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian uprisings, known as Intifadas, erupted in 1987 and 2000, with the wall’s construction beginning during the Second Intifada.
The presence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, some of which have grown into full-scale towns, further complicates the situation. The roads connecting these settlements make it difficult for Palestinians to move freely within the West Bank. The status of East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in 1967 but claimed by Palestinians as their future capital, adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing conflict.
The Israeli perspective on the wall differs significantly from the Palestinian view. Many Israelis see the barrier as a necessary security measure that has effectively reduced the number of suicide bombings and attacks, which killed hundreds of Israelis in the years before its construction. The Israeli government points to the dramatic decrease in Israeli deaths following the completion of the first phase of the wall as justification for its existence.
However, Israeli public opinion is divided on the issue of settlements in the West Bank. Religious Jewish settlers claim biblical rights to the land, while secular settlers argue that Israel’s occupation is legal since Jordan dropped its claim to the territory. The international community, however, considers the settlements to be illegal.
Most Israelis support the wall and believe it has had a positive impact on their security. They have psychologically retreated behind the barrier, focusing on other internal problems and divisions. Some on the left oppose the wall, seeing it as an obstacle to a peaceful solution with the Palestinians, but they remain a minority.
The concept of the wall aligns with Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” theory, which advocated for dealing with the Arabs from a position of unassailable military strength until they realized they could not destroy Israel and would be willing to negotiate.
Critics argue that the reduction in attacks was due to a conscious decision by Palestinian factions to lower the tempo of violence, as they realized it was harming their cause internationally. However, Israel maintains that the wall, along with other barriers constructed along its borders with Gaza, Egypt, and Syria, plays a crucial role in the country’s security.
The permanence of the walls is a divisive issue in Israel. Some see them as temporary measures, with the potential to be removed once a final settlement is reached between Israelis and Palestinians. However, reaching such an agreement is complicated by deep divisions within both sides.
Tim Marshall continues to explore the deep divisions within Israeli society, highlighting the differences between various Jewish groups as well as the stark disparities between Jewish and Arab Israelis.
The Jewish population is split between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, who have different cultural backgrounds and levels of influence. Within the Jewish community, there are also significant divisions between secular, traditional, religious, and ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews. These groups rarely interact socially, live in segregated neighborhoods, and have distinct educational systems.
The rifts are also evident in economic terms, with the Haredi population experiencing higher levels of poverty due to large families and a tendency to prioritize religious studies over work. The divisions within Jewish society are visible in everyday life, particularly at religious sites like the Western Wall, where a bitter dispute has raged between the Women of the Wall group and the Haredi community over women’s right to pray as a group and wear prayer shawls.
These differences also influence the political sphere, with religious parties often holding significant power in coalition governments and promoting views that may not align with those of the secular population. Despite these internal divisions, David Kornbluth suggests that Jewish Israelis tend to unite in the face of external threats.
The divide between Jewish and Arab Israelis is even more pronounced. While Arab Israelis have full citizenship and legal rights, they often live separate lives, with their own schools, neighborhoods, and media. They face discrimination and have lower living standards compared to their Jewish counterparts, with higher poverty rates and limited access to higher-paid jobs.
The Arab population is also divided along religious and ethnic lines, with Bedouins being the most disadvantaged. Many Arab Israelis self-identify as Palestinian, creating a complex relationship with the state, particularly when it comes to military service.
Crossing into the Palestinian territories, Marshall highlights the territorial divide between the West Bank and Gaza, which are separated not only by geography but also by politics and ideology, presenting a significant barrier to the formation of a single Palestinian state.
Marshall highlights the deep divisions between the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, which govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively. These ideological and political differences present a significant obstacle to negotiating with Israel, even if the latter were ready to do so.
Hamas, an Islamist movement considered a terrorist group by much of the West, remains committed to the “full and complete liberation of Palestine,” while Fatah, a secular movement, officially accepts the concept of a two-state solution. The factional fighting between the two groups in 2007 led to a split in Palestinian governance, with repeated efforts to reconcile proving unsuccessful.
In Gaza, Hamas has enforced its version of Islam, alienating moderate Palestinians and the small Christian community. The group’s continued rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas have also divided opinion among Gazans, with some questioning the value of these acts of defiance in light of Israeli retaliation.
Despite the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, its residents remain trapped, with both Israel and Egypt restricting movement in and out of the Strip due to security concerns. The thriving black market and smuggling tunnels provide some relief but do not constitute a normal economy.
Life in the West Bank is comparatively easier, but Palestinians still face difficulties in crossing into Israel or Jordan and obtaining work permits. Many younger Palestinians are questioning their leadership’s failures, but the lack of a genuine liberal democracy and the prioritization of the struggle for national self-determination hinder the emergence of alternative political movements.
Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries face discrimination and are often denied citizenship, voting rights, and access to certain professions. Arab governments have used the Palestinians as political tools while keeping them in poverty to highlight their plight and deflect criticism from their own domestic failures.
Given the divisions within and between the Israeli and Palestinian populations, a two-state solution acceptable to all parties seems unlikely in the near future. For now, the barriers remain in place to contain the violence that has plagued the region since Israel’s establishment, with the situation remaining fragile and prone to reignition.