Wording In Israel Language Analysis

Within the span of a few years, the political, social, and cultural climate in Palestine was whiplashed from being under the control of the Ottoman Empire, to colonization and state building by Jewish immigrants from the diaspora, to British rule through mandate, and finally the establishment of the Israeli state. The rhetoric that was used in both Zionist and Arab Palestinian propaganda created a situation that was very complex under the surface, and needs to be approached with delicate care. Taking this into consideration, as historians it is important to remain as objective as possible when reading documents from both the Jewish and Arab side because they both will show a view of the conflict that will benefit them most. As situations change, so will these views and the tone of newspapers and consumerism will change along with it.

The Middle East has been a conflict ridden area due to clashing religions, and political and territorial disputes for centuries. Although deep-seated religious and political differences can easily cause violent rivalry, territorial dispute frequently causes long lasting tension and fighting between those involved. Specifically the area occupied by modern day Israel and Palestine and due to the area being a hub for religious pilgrims of Jewish, Catholic, and Islamic faith there has been controversy for centuries. Most importantly though, is the presence of Britain having control of the land beginning in 1917 due to the growth of Zionism. Eventually the United Nations created their partition plan as a way to try to have peace between the Arabs and Jews but as time went on it seemed less and less likely for peace to prevail (Fisher 5). Similarly, this view of the conflict being impossible to solve is present in Yasmina Khadra’s writings. Khadra in his novel, The Attack, suggests that a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is not possible through the extremist behavior of Sihem which correctly reflects that of the actual hatred of Israelis found in current

Following the partition plan in 1947, the state of Israel was created in 1948. I will be discussing the extent to which the creation of Israel was a turning point throughout a hundred year period. The conflict can be split up into 3 different strands which include: Arab Israeli, Palestinian-Israeli, Western involvement. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the regional conflict that erupts in 1948 when the newly created Arab states invade Israel and is partially resolved by 1996. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the local conflict throughout the 100 year period between the native Palestinians and the Israeli’s, it is still unresolved. Western involvement represents the foreign nations that were associated in the conflict. My main argument is that the creation of Israel was the principle turning point for the Arab-Israeli dispute strand because; it transformed a civil war to an interstate conflict. I also feel that it was the principle turning point for the Palestinian-Israeli strand because, it saw a huge change in policy and led to the dissolution of the Palestinian people with many fleeing into surrounding Arab nations, this is known as the Palestinian problem. The Suez crisis was the pivotal moment for the Western Involvement strand because it saw a new era with the start of the Cold War’s influence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Life or Land? A Critical Review of Gershom Gorenberg’s A Bitter Prize: Israel and the Occupied Territories.

“The Zionists came and destroyed a sovereign Palestinian State and then kicked out all of its inhabitants forcing them to be perennial refugees. Just as bad the Zionists then erased all vestiges of this ancient Palestinian State and built their Imperialistic Racist State on the ruins of Palestine. This all happened in 1948 – 1949. There will never peace in the Middle East until the Zionist entity is destroyed and the indigenous Palestinian people are allowed to reestablish their state of

Focus on Palestinian-Israeli conflicts in recent history, where Israel has won time after time and “the Palestinian people have been shattered and dispersed.” (p.xiii)

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

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

If two cultures are exposed to each other, one is always misunderstood. Cultures clash and one group of people is put underneath the other. A culture wants its community, even its entire state, to be a strongly utopian to their standards. If your culture does not live up to their standard then they drive your culture out and take power over your land. They become the dominant discourse and you become the “other.” Your culture is being diminished and your identity is being taken away. The writer, Edward Said, wrote a text called, States, that strongly display how the Palestinians’ culture is driven out of their homeland and forced to become the “other.”

The popular ‘two-state solution,’ she illustrates is indeed practically infeasible. Between Israeli strategic considerations, and issues in communication between Israeli and PLO representatives, the likelihood of compromise seems small. If nothing else, the last twenty-eight years (1988-2016) of fruitless negotiations reinforce her disillusion with the ‘two-state solution.’ In addition, her appeal to data to prove that Israeli rule of the Arab population has had beneficial socio-economic effects in Judea and Samaria is extremely effective. In Part II, Glick brings forth data that proves that there is a correlation between Israeli control and standard of living improvement among the Arab populations of Judea and Samaria. Since these communities fell under the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords of the mid 1990s, these standards either plateaued or fell. In addition, her examination of the legal standing of Judea and Samaria, also appears to be thorough taking into consideration her solid credentials in the field of international diplomacy. In addition to international journalism, Glick has studied international relations at the Kennedy School of Government, and has served as foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin

Without a Palestinian peace deal the financial cost and man hours and loss of strategic lands would leave them more vulnerable to Palestinian attack. The Israeli’s began moving out of settlements in Gaza and West Bank but abruptly reversed course in 2000 after violence broke out again. Many road blocks have arisen which have made it more difficult for the Israeli’s to believe that the two parties will ever come to a peace agreement. 60% percent of Israeli’s believe that Israel should relinquish the West Bank and Gaza. Even though that number is high many Israeli’s believe that Israel would be relinquishing land that were promised to their people in the Bible. With all things considered Israel could best serve its interest by remaining in the disputed lands until an expectable peace plan is completed. There are no guarantees for peace without it (Monitor,

Following World War II the British requested that the recently established United Nations determine the future of Palestine. After investigating the cituation, they came to an agreement that the country would have to be divided in order to satisfy the needs and demands of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Jews had acquired by purchase 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine amounting to about 20 percent of the arable land (7).

The Palestinian narrative is one of a stable society uprooted by European Jewish settlers and subsequently subject to unjustified Israeli violence, emphasising “the history of Palestine, the poignant testimonials of Palestinians living under grievous conditions of occupation or exile or imprisonment, [and] the betrayals by international and national leaders.” Take

“But the British government’s hope was that the UN would be unable to arrive at a workable solution, and would turn Palestine back to them as a UN trusteeship.” (Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict) Although The United Nations decided it was best for them to voted to partition Palestine into separate Palestinian and Jewish states. “The partition plan called for two states roughly equal in size, but the border looked like a jigsaw puzzle.” (Crash Course, John Green) This partition did not work out very well. Shortly after the plan was announced the Arab-Israeli War broke out. Israel was on one side and the Palestinians and many Arab states on the other. Israel won this war and “they received a third more land than they would have under the UN’s deal.” (Crash Course, John Green.) The UN had tried to make peace between these two countries, but there plans did not

Following the Six-Day War, Israeli settlement and presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip formed a constant tension and unrest between Israelis and Palestinians. It is also important to recognise the climate of economic adversities and low quality of living conditions for the Palestinians due to Israeli focused government policies. This essay will discuss the importance of land ownership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the source of mounting frustration by Palestinians against the Israelis. It will also discuss the rekindling of Palestinian nationalism that was especially prominent throughout the Intifada.