The 's Theory Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem

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.

On Friday night, the University of Washington played host to three of today’s greatest historians concerning the Israel/Palestine issue. Professor Anita Shapira, known for her contextual history of Israel ignited the room with her powerful comments about the circumstances for Arab removal from Israeli lands. Professor James Gelvin tiptoed on several touchy subjects, reiterating his concentration with causality history, nevertheless his historical background gave insight to nationalistic movements both groups have. The third historian, Professor Ilan Pappe concentrated the bulk of his talk on explaining the movement of Palestinian refugees while advocating for the acknowledgement of Israeli brutality in some Arab villages. Naturally, as it was the first time all three sides had come head-to-head, the debate got heated. This was especially true when comparing ideas of what the occupied territory should be described as. History of Modern Israel/Palestine student Erika Arias was able to mediate the debate, defuse tensions and at times draw laughs from the audience.

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.

Since the UN partition of Israel and Palestine in 1947, Israel has been placed in many instances of conflict between the Jewish migrants to the region and the Palestinian natives. Several conflicts resulted in open, declared war, such as the First Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In addition, Israel has been involved in the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of the Gaza Strip. After the last open war, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has been marked by the military governorate, taking political and institutional control of the region that is ethnically and religiously different than the population that resides in the Jewish state of Israel.

The United Kingdom expended great effort to give the appearance of neutrality and maintaining a balanced approach during their administration of the British Mandate of Palestine. Notwithstanding, an examination of British Policies during the period of 1917 to 1947 shows that they greatly contributed to the defeat of the Arabs and emergence of the Jewish homeland- the State of Israel, in 1948. The pre-Mandate actions of the British showed a clear preference for the Zionist agenda, and directly influenced the creation of the Mandate. During the mandate, the British claimed, “that Jews and Arabs would live in harmony together.” They openly resisted Jewish designs for the establishment of a home state, but their policy was inherently favourable

This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the

The war for the independence of Israel was not a war as much as it was a hostile takeover of Palestine by any means necessary. Two infamous Jewish forces, the Irgun and the Haganah, often used terror tactics to achieve their goals and both focusing their energies on reprisals against Arabs and the British. Their tactics killed hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of a Jewish state and the Haganah even attacked their own people, framing the Palestinians, in order to generate support and sympathy for the their cause, but these acts appealed to some who “believed that any action taken in the cause of the creation of a Jewish state was justified.” There were unquestionably consequences to these actions as well as violent reactions to a Jewish state from other Middle Eastern states. When Israel finally declared independence, “the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq invaded Israel” and began the first war between the Arabs and now Israelis. Although the Arab Legion lost the war against Israel, in part to the support Israel received from the United States, it set a precedent for Arab-Israeli relations which have been tense every since and there still has yet to be reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians, who continue to be oppressed and persecuted.

The investigation assesses demographic shifts to Palestine in the context of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It more specifically inquires about the impact of Jewish immigration on Palestine in terms of the effects it had on Jewish-Arab relationships in Palestine. It seeks to determine the extent the third, fourth, and fifth aliyahs of 1919-1939 had on the economic development of the Israeli State and its social implications. Monographs and general texts will be used to provide background on the conflict, including the rise of Zionism, the British Mandate, the White Paper, and the Peel Commission. This context will also be used to critically analyze the role of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the role it played in land reforms, rioting, and the implementation of restrictions set by the British government on Palestine. Two secondary sources, William L. Cleveland’s A History of the Modern Middle East and Howard M. Sachar’s A History of

His article argues that the Israelis won the Arab- Israeli War of 1948 and therefore were able to shape its history through their lens, but their version of the conflict is flawed and the information now available undermines what they claimed to be true. He stated that the Zionist version of the truth is just propaganda, spread in a way to make them look like innocent bystanders and the victims and the Arabs as the

Israel successfully fought off the pan-Arab army while other Israeli combatants terrorized and depopulated the countryside. Ilan Pappe termed the depopulation of Palestinians as “ethnic cleansing” but can this phrase be properly used when discussing the events of 1947-1948? To answer this question one must determine if there is a well-established definition of the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ and also establish that this was the intent of the Zionists, both initially and subsequently. This can be determined by examining Zionist policy and action previous to the U.N partition plan and after, which will demonstrate that the term is appropriately applied to the situation by Pappe.

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

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.