The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a constant struggle between the Arab and Jewish population about the established state Israel.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for many years, there have been a variety of options that could potentially help solve this conflict. However, the options that may be provided may not be agreeable. With each solution both sides have questioned the security of the borders, and protection for both the Arab and Jewish population. There have been many attempts to settle the conflict and so far all of the attempts have failed. In this paper I will argue that the Segal's Two-State and One-homeland solution can solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict derived from the Zionist population. The Zionist wanted to colonize a piece of land that could be considered the Jewish homeland. As they immigrated to different parts of Europe, they eventually landed in Palestine. In the beginning, the Zionist's immigration was not a problem to the people that were already living in Palestine. But the problems presented themselves because the Zionists decided to take over Palestine, and turn it into a Jewish state. As the years went on and the wars continued, majority of Palestine was conquered by Israel. And as a result of the wars, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained prevalent throughout history.
Segal's Two-state and One-homeland solution is the best way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both the Jewish and Arab population will have their own political constructions but the one homeland means they will not have to split the historical sites within their state. The two-state suggestion will contribute to end of the Israeli-Palestinian conf...
... middle of paper ...
...xplains that there should be fair equality of opportunities for everyone involved. This principle can be applied to the conflict because in order to achieve peace, both sides have to have the opportunity for equality.
Rawl's claim supports my thesis of Segal's solution resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine. This principle connects with Segal's solution because having two states and one-homeland means they have the opportunity to structure their state however they choose to and the opportunity to stay within the same region their homeland is located. Rawl's claim strengthens the argument because his theory is based on basic rights for all and equality of opportunities for all. The idea of equal opportunities connects to the conflict because in order to reach an agreement both sides must be willing to compromise to make everything equal for the states.
Conflicts between people often have multiple causes and effects. A majority of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an argument that dates back to Biblical times. The Jewish argue Palestine was the historical site of all Jewish kingdoms, which was promised to Abraham and his descendants. The Arabs argue that Ishmael, forefather of Arabs, is the son of Abraham so God’s promise that the land should go to Abraham’s descendents includes Arabs as well . Some of the main causes which worsen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the disparity between Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration, The United Nation Partition plan of 1947, which was the separation of the boundaries, and Hitler’s Final Solution. While these causes affected both sides
According to Shlaim, the conflict begins during World War 1 when the British made various promises to both Jews and Arabs while simultaneously plotting with the French to divide all the territory into spheres of influence . The British assumed that Palestinians and Jews could leave peaceably in a single state, but Britain's obligation to the Jews could only be met at the expense of the Arab majority. The British carved up the territories under their mandate without regard for religious, ethnic, or linguistic composition of their inhabitants.
The fight between Israel and Palestine has been seen as an unfair battle, due to the high-tech supplies given to Israel by the US. Israel’s military is extremely strong and constantly growing, with people joining from all over the world, while Palestine’s main defense is a terrorist group called Hamas. Israel has been forced into building a wall surrounding the Gaza strip to stop these terror attacks from harming the citizens of Israel. Palestine believes that Israel’s fighting is too severe compared to Palestine’s attempts at attacking Israel. Gideon Levy wrote, “Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification to them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law, and wisdom (Document 5, Palestinian View)”. The Palestinians believe that the Israeli military is fighting too much and unfairly, and should not be allowed to take these measures against them.
Although Equality has a great vision for its new society, it’s also on the way to a collective society. When it comes to fighting with his brothers. He may not be as strict as the society he used to live in, but he as well as others do not just want fights to erupt and the be the way men solve problems. Fighting with guns and knives and also person to person has become a huge conflict in today’s society. Equality;s last society had a good and effective way of keeping violence to a minimum.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for a partition resolution that led to the establishment of the nation of Israel in May, 1948. This was great news for Jews in Palestine and the diaspora as it meant the fulfillment of the quest for the rebirth of their nation in their previous homeland after many years of wandering (Pappe, 2006, p. 12). However, their Palestinian Arab counterparts opposed to the establishment from the start felt cheated by the international community and remained categorical that the final answer to the Jewish problem would only be solved in blood and fire (Karsh, 2002, p. 8).
Israel has been dealing with Palestinian pressures to give back the land that they consider “theirs” and other leaders have had different views on how to handle aggression from the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert’s views included handling the conflict with peace and not using violence. He suggested to Mohamed Abbas a convergence plan which centered around the idea that the Israeli people would be forced out of the West Bank which is an are...
The partition plan for Palestine that was adopted by the UN in 1947 was disastrous; rather than solving the conflict, it exacerbated the problem. This partition plan created a massive refugee crisis, the loss of Palestinian Arab identity, ongoing war between Israel and the Arab states, and tremendous political instability in the Middle East. Essentially, the partition plan should have never been enacted. Instead, a plan which joined both sides in a common goal and allowed all parties to maintain political power should have been implemented. A modified version of the 1947 proposal for a federal solution would have decreased the future violence in the conflict because it would have balanced the power dynamics by giving both Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish
A possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the two-state solution. The two-state solution would become a peace agreement in which establishes a Palestinian state alongside the current state of Israel (Bourke). In the opinion of the Maghar Druze’s community, peace is the main objective in which the two-state solution could provide. As follows, most Israeli Druze’s would encourage the current peace talks in aim of a two-state agreement. Despite the fact that the two-state solution requires compromise in which it is believed the Palestinian are not able to accommodate. In particular, the Maghar Druze’s do not believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a two-state agreement because of the need for retaliation fo...
...s toward peace”. Proving that being pacifist does not necessarily mean that war is unacceptable, it can also stand for bringing peace by a different point of view.
In concluding this, in my opinion these two treatises put at risk the state of fairness because as I have mentioned in the previous paragraph one cannot have absolute truth on what he heard about the other and this may lead to conflict. Looking at these two one may conclude that the state of nature may lead into the state of war because as men are allowed to be judge of themselves in the state of nature there are small chances for them to judge outside interest of themselves and this brings quarrel between the aggressor and the one whose right is harmed.
Since the inception of an Israeli nation-state in 1948, violence and conflict has played a major role in Israel’s brief history. In the Sixty-One year’s Israel has been a recognized nation-state, they have fought in 6 interstate wars, 2 civil wars, and over 144 dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) with some display of military force against other states (Maoz 5). Israel has been involved in constant conflict throughout the past half century. Israel’s tension against other states within the Middle East has spurred vast economic, social, and political unity that has fostered a sense of nationalism and unity in Israel not seen in most other states. Over the next several pages I will try and dissect the reasons for why the nation state of Israel has been emerged in constant conflict and how this conflict has helped foster national unity and identity among the people of Israel.
Bob Hawke once said; “Unless and until something concrete is done about addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue you won't get a real start on the war against terrorism.” Perhaps Hawke put into a few simple words one of the most complicated issues within our world today, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Israel continues to strip the Palestinians of their land and fears it’s very existence because of the Palestinians terrorist acts, there seems to be no solution in sight. The world appears to be split and all over the place when it comes to this matter. According to The Middle East Institute for Understanding approximately 129 countries recognize Palestine as a state while many others do not. Over all the political matters within this issue not only affect Palestine and Israel but the world as a whole, as the Middle East and the West seem to disagree. This has had and will continue to have an enormous impact on many political affairs all over the world particularly in the current fight against terrorism. Personally I feel that the Israeli Palestinian conflict while being a very complicated matter has a simple solution. Within this issue I am a firm believer that the occupation of the West Bank by Israeli forces is extremely unjust and must come to an end. Once this is achieved a two state solution will be the most effective way to bring peace to the area. The occupation of the West Bank violates political and legal rights, human rights, and illegally forces Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years from their land. This conflict is at the height of its importance and a solution is of dire need as nuclear issues arise in the Middle East due to the tension between Israel and it’s surrounding neighbors, and the...
The United Nations (UN) Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947 not only divided the region geographically, but also the opinion of the international community. The end of the First World War saw the acquisition of Palestine by the British and later the separation of the region into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish. In the years following, the territory has been ardently contested and continues to draw international attention due to ongoing tension. It will be argued that the support for the Partition Plan by the United States was substantially driven by domestic politics. The following issues will be examined in order to see how domestic politics influenced and was intertwined with foreign policy: the extensive Jewish lobbying
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” Stated former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir after three fourths of one million Palestinians had been made refugees, over five hundred towns and cities had been obliterated, and a new regional map was drawn. Every vestige of the Palestinian culture was to be erased. Resolution 181, adopted in 1947 by the United Nations declared the end of British rule over Palestine (the region between the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River) and it divided the area into two parts; a state for the Jewish and one for the Arab people, Palestine. While Israel was given statehood, Palestine was not. Since 1947, one of the most controversial issues in the Middle East, and of course the world, is the question of a Palestinian state. Because of what seems a simple question, there have been regional wars among Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, terrorist attacks that happen, sometimes daily, displacement of families from their homes, and growing numbers of people living in poverty. Granting Palestinian statehood would significantly reduce, or alleviate, tensions in the Middle East by defining, once and for all, the area that should be Palestine and eliminating the bloodshed and battles that has been going on for many years over this land.
Israel was not considered a country until the United Nations made it its own country in 1948 because Israel and Palestine were having territorial and governmental issues (Issitt and Montanez - Muhinda). The conflict between the two countries began in the twentieth century. The Jews were living on Palestinian territory and because of that the Palestinians were furious about it. Palestine owned 45 percent of the land and Israel owned the other 55 percent. Palestinians thought this division of the land was unfair because they got less land yet both countries had to share the Holy City of Jerusalem. Also, ethnic and religious differences cause the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The United States got involved with this conflict by joining