“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.
America
…show more content…
This ongoing conflict has claimed 1,211 Israeli lives and 9,466 Palestinian lives since September 29, 2000 (If Only Americans Knew). According to David Makovsky of the Washington Institute, two states would lead to a sharp decrease in violence and terrorism. More than 70 nations at a french conference about Middle Eastern peace agreed two states is mandatory to reduce the consequences of continued violence. In addition, the injustice palestinians face every day causes a deep-rooted hate for Israel within its community, breeding more continued violence. A separation of Israel and Palestine would diminish hate crimes and civilian attacks as well as establish safer borders. For this reason, it would be foolish for the United States to not support a two-state solution and pressure Israel to enact it in order to reduce violence and terrorism in the …show more content…
As the world becomes more industrialized and interdependent, the need for good relations in areas increases, especially with countries near Israel. The Middle East is becoming a more prominent player in global relations today, making their alliance extremely valuable to those who have it. The United States’ relationship with countries in the Middle East is a pressing topic as terrorism in this region grows. By pressuring Israel into creating two states, the United States can help decrease the hostile relations between them and countries Palestine is allied with, which include Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan among many other arab nations. According to Chas W. Freeman of the Middle East Policy Council, our main conflict with the arab states stems from our alliance and support of Israel while they continue to oppress Palestinians. Thus, two states would lead to a relaxation in these relations. As discussed in the paragraph above, two states would also lead to the creation of the first two democracies in the Middle East. Through shared political views, relations in the area will improve as well. Therefore, the pressure of the United States to create two states will boost relations with countries in the Middle East, which is vital in today’s
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the one of the world’s oldest conflicts, and it is still an ongoing problem in the world. Zionists and Arabs: two groups with conflicting beliefs who both claim Israel as their own. In wake of the Holocaust the U.N decided to gift the Jews a homeland for the lives lost in the genocide. In 1947, the U.N Partition divided the land of Israel (Historic Palestine) into two separate states: Arab and Jewish. Since then, the state of Israel has been the center of conflict between the Arabs and the Zionists. As time passed the Zionists gained more land from winning the Six-Day War, and consequently the Palestinians had to live as refugees in other Arab countries. Additionally, more than 75% of the land belonged to
Any reference to conflict turns history into a reservoir of blame. In the presence of conflict, narratives differ and multiply to delegitimize the opponent and to justify one’s own action. Narratives shape social knowledge. The Israeli Palestinian conflict, both Jews and Muslims, view the importance of holding the territories through religious, ideological, and security lenses, based on belief that Palestine was given by divine providence and that the land belongs to either the Israelis or Palestinian’s ancestral home. Understanding these perspectives is required for understanding Palestinians’ and especially Israel’s strategy and role in entering the Oslo peace process. Despite
The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most long-term, pressing, and largely confounding social, political, and national quandaries of our age. Since we have been moving with surprising velocity into the vast horizons of globalization, the conflict has built up tremendous momentum and has called into question the adequacy of our current attempts at coming to a peaceful resolution that can simultaneously and successfully address both sides of the struggle. The purpose of this paper has been to understand the prospect of a two-state nation solution for Israel and Palestine. The discussion arises a retrospective view of the context behind the present analysis. We begin with a discourse that informs the reader of the historical narrative between the Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinians who also seek to live in the lands which comprise Israel. At the forefront of the discussion are some key issues such as trends in Israeli settlement expansion over time, the manner in which these settlements create political challenges towards the prospect of a two-state solution, and the fragmentation of power within Palestinian political parties which inhibit the opportunity for proper negotiations amongst the two parties. Finally, we delve into a discussion on nationalism, it’s importance in the discussion of a two-state solution, and the challenges posed when trying to formulate US Foreign Policy towards the matter.
“The United States recognizes the provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.” These are the words of President Harry Truman from a speech he gave shortly after Israel became a recognized nation in 1948. Consequently, the political leaders of the United States have brought America on a rough journey to the current state of foreign policy and relationship with Israel. Since 1948, the United States’ active position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen very little change or progress towards achieving settlement between these two nationalistic states. In the last 65 years, the majority of U.S. presidents repeated mistakes made by their predecessors in office, and this in turn has had little
Despite current misconceptions of the tensions between Muslims and Jews, the current political conflict began in the early 20th century. The Palestinians, both muslims and christians, lived in peace for centuries. Control of the city had historically, since 637 AD, been under Muslim control with guarantee of Christians’ safety, right to property, and right to practice religion. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to European nations colonizing many of its former lands, and the British gained control of Palestine. Social and political issues prompted European jews to flee from political unrest from their homes in Europe, and migrate to Palestine. Seeing the influx of Jews as a European colonial movement, the Arabs fought back. The British couldn’t control the violence, and in 1947 the United Nations (UN) voted to split the land into two countries. The continued political unrest in the Middle East is the cause of United States involvement.
The big question we ask ourselves today is, will Israel and Palestine ever agree to stop fighting? The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been traced all the way back to 1948 through 2005 in The Israel Palestine Land Settlement Problem, written by Charles Rowley and Jennis Taylor. However, this conflict did not end in 2005. This article was written in 2006, so anything within the last 10 years is not included. The conflict between the two counties still continues to this day and still remains a major problem. Israelis and Arabs have been fighting over Gaza on and off for decades now. The three issues laid out in this article are the four major wars that took place, the refugee problem, and the conflict between religions. It concludes with the road map to peace. Throughout his whole book, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Gelvin speaks of the same historical events that occurred between Israel and Palestine, while the article reveals there are still other conflicts, the land settlement problem has been the major conflict between Israel and Palestine since 1948.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political
Israel has spent millions of dollars on making safe borders, security for counter terrorism, and roads around Palestine. Based off a study by RAND after ten years of using the Two-state solution the cost would be five percent more than that of a One-state solution. And it cost forty-nine percent more for the Palestinians with a Two-state Solution (Habib). A former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, commented that having a Two-state solution negatively affects Israel’s and Palestine’s economy (Habib). According to the Journal of International Affairs, violent conflicts arising from a Two-state solution would lead to an economic crash for both the Israeli and Palestinian states: “Such a conflict would cost Israeli GDP some $250 billion (equivalent to 10 percent), and the West Bank and Gaza $46 billion (46 percent).” (Habib). By using a One-state solution, both states would not need to waste money on security and counter
For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is just one of the many facets that have shaped modern day politics in the Middle East. It is a conflict rooted in generations of violence, discrimination and prejudice that is complicated by a history older than any of the modern day superpowers. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel by the 1947 UN partition of Palestine
After listening to the Israel-Palestine panel, it became clear to me that a two-state solution is the only viable option. The panelists from Friends of Israel, J Street U, and Jewish voices for peace all clearly stated their support for and belief in the two-state solution. From discussion during the panel, I gathered that a two-state solution would include Israel as a Jewish, democratic state that will coexist peacefully alongside and independent Palestinian state. Borders in this solution would be based on pre-1967 lines with agreed land-swaps to allow each state to incorporate large population centers on the other side, and of course, there would be compromises over Jerusalem, as well as mutual access to all holy sites.
Throughout the period of World War II, many Jewish people had fled to Israel seeking a place for sanctuary due to Hitler’s reign of terror, but who knew that one of the most largest movements in the history of Europe would cause one of the biggest renowned issues that still remains today. We can easily conclude that both Palestinian and Israeli people both believe that Israel is a land of sacred, where both religions had made history in this land. Although one of the biggest issues that still remains today is who really deserves the land the most. The Palestinian people currently live in the land of Israel before the Jews had made their movement, but after letting in countless Jewish refugees into their land, the Jewish people had realized
After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions.
Since the early 20th Century, Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With the assumption that Palestine is a state to facilitate discussion, this report sketches out the most significant elements of the conflict on the three levels defined by Kenneth Waltz, and applies the Realist theory of international relations (IR) to the “Two-State” solution.