The War Of Palestine

The Israel-Palestine Conflict The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a part of the greater Arab-Israeli long-running conflict in the Middle East. The main point of this conflict is the existence of the state of Israel and its relations with Arab states and with the Palestinian population in the area. The idea and concept of Israel was born in the mid 19th century. Jews of Europe and America wanted a place for their homeland, where they could go and be with others of the same race and religion. Palestine was chosen because of its religious routs from The Bible as the “promised land” from God, and the motherland of Jews fled, known as the Diaspora.

The Arab/Israeli conflict is a conflict between the Arabs and the Jews over a small piece of land known as the holy land which is an area in the Middle East of the Arab world. The Arabs call the land Palestine, the Jews call it Israel but both religions have strong religious links with the land. There is conflict between the two religions because they both believe that the land belongs to them.

To start, Carter says outright what his vision for America was: “...but America does want to be the world's peacemaker.” Furthermore, Carter continues with his vision for America’s peace-seeking foreign policy. He does this by talking about SALT, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: “The purpose of SALT, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.” By speaking about the importance of the SALT, Carter effectively laid out what his plan was to secure peace amongst nuclear-armed nations. However, at the same time, President Carter made sure to lay out what America wanted to achieve in the immediate short-term regarding foreign policy: “Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East.” As written before, it was strategically important to the United States that they maintain the sovereignty of Israel. Specifically, after failing to intervene in China during the uprising of the KMT, it

Since his presidency did not begin with Israel becoming a state, his focus was greatly adjusted and at first there was a noticeable decline in aid and care for Israel’s wellbeing. Israel was also rather vulnerable during this time, due to the fact that there more Jewish refugees entering Israel from surrounding Arab states. President Eisenhower convincingly proved that America had the ability to influence Israel in a good way, although his presidency ended with the Middle East still in a state of war. During Eisenhower’s administration, there were two successful incidents of U.S. management of Israel and in both circumstances, Eisenhower avoided the political compulsions of America’s attachment to Israel and instead forced the Israelis to act upon principle. Unfortunately, his presidency was the last to give Israel undivided focus, for the ones to follow were absorbed in other affairs and did not provide the same constructive support.

The Crusades, a series of wars, are an extremely important part of history in the 12th century, occurring during the Middle Ages. The Middle East or the Holy Land was always a place that Christians traveled to to make pilgrimages. The Seljuk Turks eventually took control of Jerusalem and all Christians were not allowed in the Holy City. As the Turks power grew, they threatened to take over the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I, asked Pope Urban II for help and Pope agreed, hoping to strengthen his own power. He He united the Christians in Europe and In 1095, Pope Urban II waged waged war against muslims in order to “reclaim the holy land.”

Since 1967 the borders between Palestine and Israel have been unfair. The Israeli people have taken a majority of the Palestinians land. This had caused conflict between these two territories for years. The Israel and Palestine conflict has been going on for many decades and nothing seems to be able to solve this issue. All because the Israeli government is very stubborn. They are not willing to make a compromise in this situation. The main issues between the Palestinians and the Israelites are; Israel has been unfair to the Palestinians and have taken the land which used to be their own. Not only has Israel created unfair boundaries but, they are also reluctant to let outsiders into Jerusalem. A place that is not only religiously important to the Jews but also to the Arabs. And above all of that Palestinian people feel as if they have to live in fear from the Israeli people. Israel militia has shot at mothers and children. These problems are still prevalent today; if we can solve the unfair borders, Jerusalem, and security we could have a safer Middle East.

In addition, I will examine the current state of political and human rights in Israeli occupied West Bank and analyze how they are approaching a level of apartheid. Finally, I will summarize the effects of these social tensions between Israel and Palestinians in the terms of how potential open conflict could reignite.

On May 15, 1948, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state. Many advisors of President Truman’s had advised not to, and that creating a land for the Jews would pit the Arab nations against us. He went ahead anyway, because he didn’t want to lose the American-Jew vote; and in doing so, accepted the idea of the U.N.’s Partition Plan. However, he quickly lost much of the control over the policy-making process. ( Miller Center, 2016 ) 1

In 1948, Zionist forces, due to their military pre-eminence, gained control over the territory which the UN designated to the Jews in the failed partition plan. On 14 May 1948, they declared Israeli independence and established the Israeli state (Fawcett, 2005; 221). The US recognised Israel quickly as a state and soon after that the Soviet Union did the same. The Arab League, formed out of six Arab states, did not recognise Israel as a state, because they felt the land belonged to the Arabic state of Palestine, not to the Jews. Subsequently, the six Arab forces (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria) attacked the Israeli military. The Lebanese, Syrian, Iraq and Saudi Arabian forces did not produce many offensive operations, but they managed to block the Israeli’s march. The ‘real’ fighting came from the Egyptian and Jordan forces. In the beginning, the Arabs had an advantage of weapons and air-power, whilst Israel had problems with their strategy. However, after a few months Israel was provided with war supplies from Czechoslavakia. This included both weapons for using on the mainland and aircrafts. Due to these supplies,

With little resistance possible against the German persecution, tensions heightened between the Zionists and the British in 1940 as a direct result of the continued British opposition of securing Jewish statehood despite Zionist offers to form Jewish fighting units with the British against the Germans. Consequently, the Jewish Agency’s efforts to rescue Jews from Europe and transport them to Palestine were prevented by sinking illegal transport ships filled with refugees, resulting in the formation of several underground paramilitary groups such as the Irgun and LEHI. By building up the supply of weapons, conducting guerilla attacks on local British forces and police, and by arranging the illegal entry of refugees from Europe, Jewish fighters and Zionist leaders were able to help thousands of Holocaust survivors break the British blockade and reach Palestine between 1945 and 1948. Additionally, Bickerton and Klausner point to the success of the Yishuv in creating a situation that forced the British to take the issue to the UN and subsequent activities related to Europe’s Jewish displaced persons, as being highly influential to the formation of Israel after the Holocaust. The Yishuv, fired by shame, agony and

Much has been argued regarding the existent of anti-Semitism and the general disdain for Jewry supposedly apparent in the plays of William Shakespeare. Time and again his work is held up as representative of that which we - with our 21st century sensibilities - have been educated to abhor and disavow. The hatred of man because of race, color or creed has, within the collective conscience been largely rejected. The fostering of a self-regulating society has engrained contemporary sensibilities through the policy of political correctness: a body politic of public consciousness that wasn’t apparent in 16th century England or anywhere else in the western world for that matter. All were liable to open ridicule via the medium of theatre, be they king or pauper, man or woman, Moore or Jew as evidenced by the writing of the period. Everybody and everything - much to the delight of the paying public and the disdain of the censor - was fair game. The subject – Jew, Moore etc. - is irrelevant, as the subjects themselves are simply the masks upon which the foil of disdain is played. Whether xenophobic, racist, misogamist or anti-Semitic - or any other form of depredation - Shakespeare’s writing, rather than guilty of one, is representative of all. Shakespeare uses the Jew as a representation rather than as an example and therefore, can be forgiven for what we today would class as anti-Semitism. The dearth of Jewry at this particular period of history in England supports this and

The Arab countries had tens of millions of inhabitants. But they did not properly mobilize for the war, and their armies were, therefore, relatively small. The Jewish yishuv on the other hand took pains to recruit a very large army. Out of a population of roughly 650,000 to 700,000, around 100,000 were recruited, which is a tremendous number. So if you compare populations, indeed it is a matter of the few against the many. But when you compare the number recruited on each side, it seems we had an advantage in numbers not only relative to the Palestinians but also relative to the Arab armies participating”

The War of 1948, also known as the War of Independence, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The war began May 15, 1948 when units from the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq invaded Israel launching a war that lasted until December 1948.# The war resulted in the defeat of the Arab forces and the success of Israel as a newly established state. It is evident that the Arab forces were not successful in the first Arab-Israeli war because the Arab army lacked motivation, education, and proper equipment.# Despite the support from Arab states outside of Palestine, the Arabs were unable to gain enough strength to overcome the Israeli forces. In contrast, the Israeli army was able to succeed because they had

The Middle East has long been home to very deep-rooted conflict. For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the central of death and fear. The animosity between few, takes the hope of hundreds. The Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most notably the largest issue preventing peace in the Middle East, but it is by no means the only issue. The issue of bankrolling and foreign aid are also issues preventing peace; because the U.S provides so much funding and foreign aid to certain countries, it is in some sense encouraging them to continue acting the way they act now and not change for the better of the region. It is also making the U.S look biased and can potentially cause issues for America in the long run, if they haven’t already. There is also the conflict of the Persian Gulf; the importance of these “new” resources and how it could affect the world economy and also the balancing of powers in the Persian Gulf; The U.S and the Middle Eastern nations will need to work to together to bring about security and stability into the Persian Gulf and hopefully it can overflow to the Middle East as well.

Marry Kaldor marked a difference between old and new wars in her book. She uses logical reasoning to tell her readers that new wars are quite different from the old ones. She has given an idea about the new war trends as to how the wars now occur and how the countries fight them. She is of the view that these wars are totally different from each other in all respects. Let us here look into the differences that she has marked for us to make us know that the differences are sharp and true.