Introduction The conflict between the nations of Palestine and Israel holds a lot of significance in today’s current events, and is a greatly debated and controversial topic. The conflict, commonly attributed to Jewish Zionism movements and forward settlement in the areas surrounding Jerusalem, is often seen as a two sided, illogical aggression between the neighbouring states. However; the conflict has roots that reach back to the age of imperialism, and to the conflict of World War I. Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern theater is often overlooked in many classrooms, and is often sized up to be a distraction conflict, meant to bleed the central powers of resources, and break the grid lock that was the western front. However; Britain, France, Germany, and Russia held extensive interests in the region because of its geographical location and its raw resources. The area’s fate was decided …show more content…
The document is a firsthand account of the British and French territorial ambitions in the Middle East, as well as its ambitions for a Jewish home state. The document is an excellent source in to explain the true ambitions of the allied powers, and the level of conflicting promises they had created. The document’s purpose is to divide up territorial gains following the war. However; the document was not intentionally released to the public, and therefore cannot be taken as public opinion. The document was leaked by the newly Bolshevik Russian’s following their departure from the war. This means the agreement could have been subject to change, but because of the controversy of its release, it could have possibly changed. Source
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
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.
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 actions of World War I had inconceivable consequences for the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. World War I marked the end of the, already dwindling, Empire and its scope of influence on the world. With this collapse, the Middle East fell into the hands of the British and the Allied forces who arbitrarily divided up the the region to create new nation states. Nations are large aggregates of people who have imagined sovereign rights, commonality, and political community with myths and history that create unity. Instability within the Ottoman Empire helped provide a path for local and international actors to influence the shaping of the region. Among many missteps and political choices there were three distinct players that profoundly
In the book, A Line In The Sand, James Barr discusses the French struggle over the Middle East between 1914-1948. Throughout this book, it talks about two men, one visionary British politician and the other a veteran French diplomat; Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot. They both secretly drew a line from the Mediterranean to the Persian Frontier. Britain and France would divide and rule 5 countries which are Palestine, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon ad Syria. It made the two powers uneasy neighbors for the next 30 years. In this essay I will be talking about how the Franco-British rivalry over the Middle East shaped the development of the region in James Barr’s view. I will talk about the WW1 agreements and
Throughout the 20th Century relations between Arabs and Israelis in Palestine have undergone immense tension, change and deterioration, with both parties facing many barriers to peace. Foreign intervention is often listed as one such barrier to this peace. While the importance of foreign intervention cannot be omitted, other factors can be argued to have been both equally and more detrimental to the peace process. These include the founding of the Haganah, the 1948 War after the declaration of the State of Israel, and the rise of political extremism. The aim of this essay is to identify
The rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism in the nineteenth century triggered major political tensions in the region of Palestine. The conflict among the Zionists and Arab Nationalists is primarily due to the politics of territory and is essentially not comprised of religious opposition. In fact, before the advent of Zionism and Arab Nationalism, Jews and Palestinians shared a local identity due to mutual tolerances. This identity, which took precedence over religion, created a vivacious community with its own unique set of traditions and customs shared among the Jews, Muslims and Christians. However, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Zionists whom were seeking a safe haven from Jewish prejudices in mainly Eastern Europe, proclaimed their return to Palestine. Zionists sought the territory of Palestine as the ‘official land of the Jews’ because of their ancient homeland ties. Furthermore, as Zionism progressed, Arabs Nationalists were threatened by the ideology and the vast Jewish immigration to Palestine. In the Arab point of view, Zionism emerged as a European movement, which appeared to be another attempt by Western imperialism to subordinate Muslims to Europeans. Although Arab Nationalism and Zionism were similar in nature, these two identities were destined to clash primarily due to their irreconcilable nationalistic aspirations and cultural characteristics.
Disputes between the Arabs and Jews date back to the 1800s, when Zionism was first introduced. Zionists bought land off oblivious Palestinian landowners which lead to the eviction of the arabs who worked on the land. As Jewish migration increased, the Arabs became aware of Jewish intention to take over their land. Not only did this result in unease between them but it spread fear within the Arab community forming a need for nationalism. Good afternoon year 11, This speech will highlight how bad British decisions and conflicting promises eventual escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As well as British promises, I will also be speaking about other factors that contributed to the conflict.
Each period of the conflict was characterized by either escalation or reduction of tension, but since it’s not the main concern of this research, we will only consider some of the agreements signed by the opposing sides, in order to show what attempts had been made to resolve the conflict before Palestine turned to the UN for assistance.
This investigation assesses the question “How significant was the involvement of the League of Nations/United Nations and Britain in the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict?” The time period before and after the Arab-Israeli conflict will be the focus of this investigation. This question was intriguing due to the possibility of the League of Nations causing tension rather than promoting peace. In order to explore the effect the League of Nations/United Nations had on the Arab-Israeli conflict, both primary and secondary sources will be necessary. Primary sources will include diaries, books, and propaganda. Secondary sources such as history books or reports will be needed for their analysis on the factors involved in the conflict.
Many of the problems in the Middle East today are a direct result of actions undertaken in the region 's colonial past. I will argue that both imperialist ineptitude, deliberate meddling and outright deceit by colonial powers have sown seeds of distrust that linger in the Middle East today towards the West. I will claim that artificial boundaries, government structures and societal schisms created in colonial times have entrenched animosities and created internal structural instabilities in the area that are still being resolved. The imposition of Israel into Palestine, I will argue, remains an unresolved product of colonial rule. I will discuss how the discovery of oil and the regions importance as a trade route caused the World Powers to remain engaged in the area and oppressive in their demeanour. Finally I will argue that perhaps the greatest ongoing legacy of colonialism in the Middle east is an imperialist attitude by the west which continues to this day.
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
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.
After the war broke out in the summer of 1914, the Allies—Britain, France and Russia—held many discussions regarding the future of the Ottoman Empire, now fighting on the side of Germany and the Central Powers, and its vast expanse of territory in the Middle East, Arabia and southern-central Europe. In March 1915, Britain signed a secret agreement with Russia, whose designs on the empire’s territory had led the Turks to join forces with Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914. By its terms, Russia would annex the Ottoman capital of Constantinople and retain control of the Dardanelles (the crucially important strait connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean) and the Gallipoli peninsula,
Long before the end of the War, the people in the Middle East had been destined to live in new boundaries bargained in the Sykes-Picot collusion of May 1916 or officially the Asia Minor Agreement which was leaked by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Britain, France, and the Czarist Russia had awarded themselves with splintering the Ottoman’s territories among themselves as they desired i.e., Cilicia, Lebanon, and Syria for France; Iraq and Palestine for Britain; Istanbul and the straits for Russia and southwest of Turkey was occupied by Italy. Upon Russia retreat and giving up all claims and according to the collusion of 23 December 1917 between France and Britain, Kurdistan was assigned to Britain under “the English zone” of “influence”. France and Britain also added the ‘C’ zone (the Southern Anatolia) for Italy upon his learning of the agreement. Before the Sykes-Picot, the Constantinople Agreement had been concluded on 18 March 1915 among Russia, Britain, and France by which Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Turkish Straits were to be ceded to the Russians but it never implemented.