Essay Israel and Palestine

ME> Public opinion polls among Palestinians consistently show high levels of support for the two-state solution, which averaged 82-87% in 2000-07, while 73-77% favored reconciliation between the two peoples and 66-71% joint economic ventures between an Israeli and Palestinian state (Dowty, p. 190). At the same time, the majority of Israeli's supported the two-state solution, although 30-40% remained opposed for religious, nationalist or security reasons. Palestinians supported ongoing attacks against Israel not to overthrow the government or take over the country and drive out the Jews, or because of irrational hatred of Jews and Israel, but only because of the continuing military occupation and expansion of settlements.

-Israelis—most political group in Israel also wants peace with Palestinians and come up with plans like the disengagement plan in 2005. But Zionism extremist suggests that they should takeover the occupied

Bob Hawke once said; “Unless and until something concrete is done about addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue you won't get a real start on the war against terrorism.” Perhaps Hawke put into a few simple words one of the most complicated issues within our world today, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Israel continues to strip the Palestinians of their land and fears it’s very existence because of the Palestinians terrorist acts, there seems to be no solution in sight. The world appears to be split and all over the place when it comes to this matter. According to The Middle East Institute for Understanding approximately 129 countries recognize Palestine as a state while many others do not. Over all the political matters within this issue not only affect Palestine and Israel but the world as a whole, as the Middle East and the West seem to disagree. This has had and will continue to have an enormous impact on many political affairs all over the world particularly in the current fight against terrorism. Personally I feel that the Israeli Palestinian conflict while being a very complicated matter has a simple solution. Within this issue I am a firm believer that the occupation of the West Bank by Israeli forces is extremely unjust and must come to an end. Once this is achieved a two state solution will be the most effective way to bring peace to the area. The occupation of the West Bank violates political and legal rights, human rights, and illegally forces Palestinians

In order to understand the complexity of the problem as a whole, we must first understand what role each character plays. Friedman makes sure we understand where each character is coming from and what his or her ideology is toward the situation in the Middle East. Friedman’s biographical assessments of different leaders such as Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon give us a better perceptive of the main underlying reasons for the struggle. Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, had a very distinctive appeal about him. While he was neither physically attractive nor dashing in anyway, he had an appeal to the Palestinians that was not typical with everyday statesmen. Arafat can credit his political success to his great accomplishment and that is guiding the Palestinians “out of the deserts of obscurity into the land of “prime time.”” Arafat was a statesman for the people, he knows what the people are going through and he uses that down-to-earth quality to relate to the Palestinian people and gain their trust and support. On the other hand there is Ariel Sharon, a man that didn’t play with the enemy. The

Movement in Palestine has been becoming increasingly restricted. These restrictions have occurred through the creation of countless checkpoints, installments of roadblocks, construction of isolating walls, and ever-growing settlement connecting roads. Dividing land and decelerating movement among Palestinians has ultimately resulted in debilitating the Palestinian economy and compelling Palestinians to flee or turn to resistance methods. (Bornstein, 106) While these

I participated in organizing the Middle East and North Africa Conference, where I was mainly responsible for the “Middle East Market”. Working with Israeli and Palestinian students deepened my understanding of the conflicts, but more importantly, their sheer aspiration to peace and the elegance of Arabic culture eliminated my static impression that associate the area only with violence. At Rice I would like to share my cross-cultural experience by organizing cultural events and promoting mutual understanding global peace.

This was an agreement between Israel and Palestine which became known as the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords also compromised a series of consensuses in 1994 regarding the Cairo Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho. The Declaration of Principles on Palestinian Self-Rule and the Oslo Accords recognized issues on land disputes, return of refugees, terrorism, Israel's right to exist, and the PLO as the main representative of the Palestinian people. This series of agreements benefitted Israel and Palestine. Palestine would receive a large amount of foreign aid from the United States and other countries. Israel and Palestine would be able to foster in employment and trade from other countries (Harvey Sicherman, et

However, within the Allied camp, there were different views for the peace to come and due to many compromises, this prohibited the treaty from having a clear aim all could defend. Originally Vittorio Emanuele Orlando had been part of the “Big Four” however due to unfulfilled territorial claims, the Italian prime minister left the Conference and was thus left out of the architectural role the other leaders had in the Treaties.

Bill Clinton: U.S. President, who in 2000 convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. At that time Israel offered Palestinians 66% of the West Bank for a Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately Ehud Barak was defeated in the next election and violence between Israel and the Palestinians continued.

The Oslo was a way to force both sides to make peace with each other and understand that both groups would always exist (Nowitz). PBS’s author Richard T. Nowitz states “Israel agreed to recognize Yasser Arafat as its partner in peace talks, and agreed to recognize Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by beginning to withdraw from the cities of Gaza and Jericho -- essentially exchanging land for peace. The Palestinians in turn recognized Israel's right to exist while also renouncing the use of terrorism and its long-held call for Israel's destruction.” The main goal of Oslo was to create a peace process with two phases (Nowitz). Within a 5-year time period, Oslo wanted to take steps towards both sides building trust and partnership (Nowitz). The Palestinians policed the territories they were in charge of, they helped with Israel in the fight to stop terrorism, and they put a stop to the sections of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) that wanted to destroy Israel (Nowitz). Israel’s end of the deal was that they would pull out almost completely from Gaza and in increments from parts of the West Bank and they would allow an elected Palestinian official to be in charge of the land they just withdrew from (Nowitz). After the 5-year period was up, negotiators then decided on a final peace agreement to solve the issue(s)

Quite a few popular, yet controversial candidates, like Barack Hussein Obama, have been presented a Nobel Peace Prize award for carrying out “peace” in especially contrasting and different ways. These so-called peace prizes show that peace can be associated and parallel to war engagement, destruction, unorthodox doings; In other words, a wrong can make a right! What makes Obama rise above the rest is his “Yes We Can!” attitude, his attempts to make peace in different countries along with his own, and his journey becoming who he is today. In 2009, Barack won this particular prize for his exceptional endeavor to better the international diplomacy and cooperation between the people (Lunstead). He did a lot of rebuilding relationships and

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a tragedy, a clash between one very powerful, very convincing, very painful claim over this land and another no less powerful, no less convincing claim,” (Oz, Amos). This conflict has been one that has lasted multiple decades and continues to be a hotbed for controversial opinions and arguments. One pressing issue in today’s time is whether or not the United States should continue to support what seems like a never-ending conflict. The United States Government should continue to pressure Israel into a two-state solution in order to reap the benefits, which include the creation of democratic nations in the Middle East, improved relations with bordering countries, and a decrease in violence.

For many years the Israelis and the Palestinians have been occupied with an intense and savage clash over nationhood and statehood. The authentic foundations of the hugeness of the area contained inside of Israel can be followed back to the season of King Solomon in 957 BCE, from that point forward the Jewish individuals have been cruelly oppressed by religious extremists and political tyrants. Through persistence and occupation the Jews secured the guaranteed land in 1948 after two severe worldwide wars. Be that as it may, brutality proceeds as Israel and Palestine can't resolve their disparities in light of the fact that they are unwilling to forget the past. The two state arrangement has been rejected and there is no justifiable reason motivation to trust that anything will change. One thing that could change is adjusting the providing so as to play field between these two warring groups every side with an equivalent arrangement of weapons. The outcome could be another adaptation of the icy war, which as history appears, finished. Also, the utilization of marvelous power

Unless the Israelis and Palestinians could not compromise, negotiate and come to an agreement, peace is impossible in the Middle East and even the security fence that Israel is now building will not solve the conflict nor stop terrorist actions by Palestinian extremists. The Israelis and Palestinians need to compromise and negotiate, as suggested by the words written on that wall, “Peace comes (with) agreement not separation.” The leaders of both sides of the conflict should think of the future generations. They should agree to disagree –meaning that they should come to terms and pour out all their grievances, the cause and root of their anger and go beyond that anger to

To give you a little background on the conflict. Jews and Arabs have been at each other’s throats for many centuries. There has always been a lot of prejudice between the Israelis and Palestinians and also some political conflicts. Although they have been fighting since what feels like the beginning of time I’m only going to give you the history of the conflict after World War I.