Abstract:A significant flaw in the search for peace in the Middle East over the years has been the calculated avoidance of the centrality of the Palestinian dimension of the conflict. Only now are efforts being made to tackle the problem. But the recognition of the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship still offers the temptation to pursue other avenues of resolving the conflict. This kind of diplomatic approach to the conflict is both dangerous and futile. There can be no durable peace and stability in the Middle East until a just solution to the Palestinian plight is found. Those involved in Middle East diplomacy should be constantly reminded that, from the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and the British Mandate under the League of Nations in July 1922 to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, the basis of the conflict between Jews and Arabs has been over sovereign territorial control of Palestine, and nothing else. The formulation of the Balfour Declaration was widely condemned by all Arabs and was perceived by one writer as "the double undertaking of irreconcilable commitments to the Jews and Arabs." (1) A writer who has given much thought to the issue of self-determination and nationalism had this to say of the problem: "The conception of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine could not possibly be squared with the principle of self-determination, or, for that matter, of democracy, on the basis of any of the generally accepted criteria." (2) Under the British Mandate, the conflict was mainly between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish Agency, which represented Palestinian Jews. In accordance with Article 4 of the mandate, the Jewish Agency, whose president was Chaim Weizman, was set up to cooperate with the British in implementing the promise of a Jewish national homeland. Despite the many Arab revolts and the guerrilla warfare conducted by the Jewish underground against the British, negotiations continued involving the Jewish Agency and the Arab High Committee, under the leadership of Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini. The Palestinian Arabs, strongly supported by all the Arab states, rejected the partition plan recommended by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in Resolution 181 of November 1947. The British government, which held the mandate under the League of Nations, increasingly took an ambivalent attitude toward the partition plan and in the end was one of the member states that abstained in the resolution. As David Ben-Gurion was broadcasting the declaration of independence under the terms of the UN partition resolution on May 1948, war broke out, with Egyptian bombs landing on Tel Aviv. (3) And, with the defeat of the Arab states, the Palestinian Arabs lost control of their own destiny. It should be recalled that during the League period and during World War II, Palestinian Arabs, with strong support from other Arab states, had actually been more successful in shaping the prospects for their future independence. For example, they had managed to pressure the British and other allied governments to reformulate the promise of a Jewish national homeland under the Balfour Declaration. The Churchill White Paper of 1921 appeared to reject the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine and also called for the restriction of Jewish immigration into Palestine. (4) However, between the end of the war in 1948, the subsequent signing of the armistice agreements in 1949, and the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967, the Middle East crisis was widely perceived as a conflict between Israel and the Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, were treated as a problem of refugees, for which UN Resolution 194 of December 1948 had made provisions for the right of return or compensation. What brought about this dramatic change of fortune for the Palestinian Arabs when they were marginalized in Middle East diplomacy? …

Pursuing Nasser: The Macmillan Government and the Management of British Policy Towards the Middle East Cold War, 1957–63

Nasser's Dilemma: Egypt's Relations with the United States and Israel, 1967–69

Accommodating to a working relationship: Arab Nationalism and US Cold War policies in the Middle East, 1958–60

‘A Puppet, Even Though He Probably Doesn't Know So’: Racial Identity and the Eisenhower Administration's Encounter with Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Arab Nationalist Movement

The Suez Crisis in the US Foreign Policy Strategy in the Middle East: Risks and Prospects.

‘The Battle for Abu Simbel’: Archaeology and Postcolonial Diplomacy in the UNESCO Campaign for Nubia

Egypt's Foreign Relations in Nationalism Perspective

The British Foreign Office and Domestic Propaganda on the European Community, 1960–72

U.S. policy towards Israel in the context of the Israeli-Jordanian armed clashes (1954)

“These People Have an Irrevocable Right to Self-Government”: United States Policy and the Palestinian Question, 1977–1979

US Middle East policy

The United States and Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program, 1961–1973

Problems of international governance in the middle east during the cold war period

Change in the Middle East:Case of Egypt

Double Standards: South Africa, British Rugby, and the Moscow Olympics

The Anatomy of Foreign Policy Crises

The Eisenhawer Doctrine (1957): The Impact on Arabic Countries and The Soviet Union Attitude

France and Palestine: From Charles de Gaulle to Francois Mitterand

A Diplomatic Tightrope: the Whitlam Government and the Diego Garcia Dilemma

The Middle East Conflict: The Palestinian Dimension. (Global Insights)