The Truth about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The past two centuries have been plagued with conflicts arising from groups of people identifying themselves as nation, with unalienable rights to govern themselves. This concept of national self-determination is a product of the Enlightenment, a movement that began in Europe and spread throughout the world, destroying alliances and tearing down empires. The ideas of territorial allegiance in a state and the right of sovereignty over that state, combined with national identity, became the driving forces behind the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is one of the most classic examples of a nationalist conflict. For over seventy years, this conflict has been described as a religious, ethnic and civilizational based on the variable that presented itself on the surface. By acquiring a deeper understanding of the nature of the conflict and its possible solutions, it is possible to characterize it as a fight for national sovereignty over the same piece of land. The different descriptions of the conflict can be attributed to the major differences between Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Israelis are Jews, while the Palestinian Arabs are either Moslem or Christian. The Israelis are ove
In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War ensued, the PLO supported of Sadaam Hussein against the majority of the Arab world. Although Arafat felt compelled to be loyal to Hussein for his support of the Palestinian people and his demand that Israel withdraw from the territories, this move allowed Israel a justification for refusing negotiations with the PLO. In 1991, the international community was able to get the PLO and Israel to sit down in Madrid and discuss the possibility of negotiations. Under a veil of extreme secrecy, representatives from the PLO and Israel met in Oslo, and in 1993 they signed the historic Oslo Accords in front of the international press corps on the White House lawn. In this treaty, Israel recognizes the PLO as the official spokesman for the Palestinian people and that the Palestinians are a nation with the right to self-determination. This historic agreement does not reveal how the transfer of power or land will take place, or even what the status of the Palestinian sovereignty will be. The premise for the Israeli exclusivist plan is the claim of the Greater Israel doctrine; the State of Israel would be composed of the lands in the original British mandate, which includes the lands now controlled by Israel and the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. The conservative factors of the government, Likud, reject any solutions that trade 'land-for-peace' rooted in the idea that the occupied territories are the lands promised to the Jewish people in Biblical times. Similarly they reject the claims of Palestinian nationhood and Palestinian rights of self-government in any part of the 'Greater Israel' lands. The desire to annex the territories into Israel is overwhelmed by the fear of incorporating almost 2 million Palestinian Arabs into Israel proper and undermining the internal security of the country. The security issue is played on both sides of the Israeli political spectrum, both the Labor (left) and Likud (right) parties claim that they are the only ones who can provide for the safety of Israel in the future. The use of the territories as a buffer zone between Israeli and Arab populations appeals to many Israelis; many of whom have suffered the loss of friends or family due to violent conflicts. However, the realization that annexation would incite the Palestinian population to respond with an even greater degree of uprising than the Intifada plays on the minds of Israelis concerned about the security within the state. Implementation of this plan has called for either allowing the Palestinians autonomy under Israeli rule or the transference of the Arab population out of the country. The concept of an autonomous government under Israeli rule is unacceptable to Palestinians, who interpret it as just another method of keeping the Palestinians as subordinate and second-class citizens. The forceful relocation of a population based on their ethnicity would be unacceptable to the world society and to many Israelis who are reminded of their own forced migrations during the Holocaust. Furthermore, the annexation of the territories would be condemned by the international community and might be economically harmful if the UN instituted sanctions against Israel. Lastly, the dilemma of securing the territories to the State of Israel is the probability of inducing many Arab nations to attack on behalf of the Palestinians. All these problems with the philosophy and the implementation of the plan indicates that the one state solution based on the Greater Israel concept, is not feasible or acceptable to Palestinians, many Israelis and the world at large. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in response to a number of Palestinian guerrilla attacks from across the border. The incursion was accepted as a quest for a demilitarized zone within Lebanon for the protection of the Israelis living on the border. When the attack pushed past the predetermined area, it was clear that the invas
Some common words found in the essay are:
West Bank, Bank Gaza, Six-Day War, Land Peace, Palestinians Palestinians, Israeli Arab, Palestinians Arab, Council PNC, White House, Palestinians Israelis, arab nations, west bank, palestinian people, palestinian arabs, international community, national movement, palestinian national, west bank gaza, bank gaza, jewish homeland, occupied territories, palestinian national movement, independent arab nations, claim land palestine, jewish homeland palestine,
Approximate Word count = 4847
Approximate Pages = 19 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
