Throughout the history books, conflict is a major reoccurring theme as different nations seek to earn freedom, expand territory, and gain power. Thousands of wars have been started by such motives and ended either in a glorious victory or disastrous defeat; however, another common theme can be found within the war treaties written on such occasions. From the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Paris, these agreements are written in an attempt to achieve peace and cooperation between the conquerors and those conquered; similar themes can be found in the Pact of Umar. Written by the Muslim caliph, Umar ibn AbdulAziz, the Pact of Umar was an agreement between Muslims and the conquered Jews and Christians. Due to a majority of the land still …show more content…
Several of the rules included no publicly wearing crosses or showing their books; there must be no public display of their religion. Any worship in their churches must be done in secretly and quietly. Other rules included that non-Muslims must house Muslims passing through the city, no building new churches, and absolutely no conversion to Christianity or Judaism. Children born to them must not be prevented from entering Islam if that is their desire. The Pact of Umar even affected the way non-Muslims must physically look from being forced to dress similarly to each other no matter what that may look like and no imitating Muslim clothing from their shoes to even their hairstyle. This must have been made a rule in an attempt to easily identify non-Muslims in the city streets. No non-Muslims were to be buried near Muslims, and non-Muslim houses could not be larger than Muslim housing. Muslims must always be shown the highest respect, and if a Muslim citizen commands you to stand or move, you must …show more content…
This undeniable fact will cause tension between both sides and the conditions placed upon the losing side can truly be as unfair and suppressive as desired because they, in fact, lost. Although many of the rules are viewed as unfairly harsh and subjective, that is the nature of war, a place where even an agreement of peace can be twisted into submission. The Pact of Umar has had a long lasting affect on the relationship between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and there is no doubt that it will continue to impact generations to
Should wars can be avoided, the peace is always a satisfactory result. Some ancient but enlightening religious pacifism upheld the peace under any circumstance. According to the New Testament, it’s advocated to “love” your “enemies” so that you can be decent “peacemakers”; and
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
It was in Paris after the World War I that the conference to make peace that will surpass all other ones were done. The mind of man just at the start of the World War I was still much more the same today especially with respect to attitudes like bigotry, narrow-mindedness and idealism to mention a few. The making of peace is not cheap and from the attitude or perspective that the only way out is to win so as not to lose makes the whole system of war ruthless.1 David A. Andelman and Margaret Macmillan agreed that at the peace conference issues at stake were of such that individual nation represented want to know the way out of the war before anarchy was capitulated, but also to gain an upper hand on the victims or less privileged of war. Considering individuals like the prime ministers of Britain and that of France, Clemenceau and David Lloyd George respectively, with their main decisions as when can they make the war to end? But this cannot be materialised without the British ships or men of France.
...ns between Muslims and Jews were of tolerance and peace. Muslims and Jews rarely had any challenges aside from the religious differences. Muslims and Jews shared a common interest which was trading.
“International Agreements.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition. 1994: Columbia University Press. Lanouette, William. A. “Why We Dropped the Bomb.”
In the Islamic conquest, Muslims conquered large areas consisting of distinct religion members. Muslims believed that all religions should be treated respectably; hence Jews and Christians followed ...
If we look at the history of the world with a kaleidoscope, we can see the different aspects of war and what effect it had on the minds of different people and artists such as poets, painters and authors. Many poets romanticized war, luring it with their pen and giving it a beautiful look by glorifying death and obliging young blood to fight for their motherland. For example, the poems “Peace” by Rupert Brooke and “Fall In” by Harold Begbie painted war with the highlights of glamorous and sensation. Apart from poets, there are also politicians who achieved their aims with the help of war and violence, while others who used the weapons of non-violence to achieve their goals. The most famous example is of Adolf Hitler, who took the aid of war to conquer the territories.
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
The Treaty of Versailles, as the most substantial document in the twentieth century, was supposed to end future wars and to bring in new world order, as the treaty tried to change the unequal treatments regarding gender, class and race in the prewar period (p.66-67). However, it instead planted seeds for subsequent escalated conflicts and hostilities and kept the world enmeshed in the imperialism-centered system. Many reasons caused the ineffectiveness of the treaty. In The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History, Michael Neiberg provides detailed narratives from the aspects of complex world of 1919, the players, their respective considerations and the political environment to account for the dysfunction of the treaty.
It has been almost a century since the first Paris Peace Conference was hold, but even until now, it is a popular yet also controversial event in the history of the world. The Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 involving more than 1,000 representatives from over 30 nations. The results of the Conference are five treaties regarding terms that, according to the Conference, shall prevent any upcoming conflicts among nations. Although World War II started only after 15 years, nonetheless, the treaties did function as a buffer between countries. Although many resolutions were discussed, the negotiation of the Conference revolves around four main topics, reparation from the previous war losses or limitations on the main Central Power, Germany, self-recognition, President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the annexation of land.
The Pact was formed with the idea that if and when war were to occur, a pact would be necessary for survival. Under the realist perspective, war is normal and is something that is to be expected. From lecture, this stems from the idea that “world politics is the result of human nature” (Tir, 2014). This perspective also defends the idea of militarization.
However, the reason both world wars were caused was because of the lack of means to regulate the competition between the states. At the time, there was no international entity to prevent such a huge conflict from arising. Unlike the notion the author suggests, that “struggle for existence is fundamental and in the nature of things” (Lippmann, 18), conflict can be avoided. War may be the only option, in some cases, but there are many steps before such a drastic measure should be taken. Negotiations between states can lead to compromise, instead of violent
War is a devastating problem that has existed all throughout the world, yet despite this fact people are still driven to go to war. Although war’s more severe effects (including death and future struggle between nations) often are considered to outweigh the benefits, from certain perspectives, such as a leader or government, war can be considered just and viewed as favorable for a society who wants to gain power or stop an opposing force, or for the entire world.
Characterize and analyse differing Muslim or Christian attitudes to possession of holy land or holy sites that might constrain peacemaking and explain alternative Muslim or Christian points of view that might facilitate peacemaking.
How do the terms or implementation of treaties determine peace or conflict decades later? Efforts to build a just and lasting peace are complicated not only because past grievances must be addressed, but future interests must be anticipated-even when such future interests were not identified as the cause of war in the first place. Edward Teller, discussing the Manhattan Project, observed, "No endeavor which is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be simple in retrospect."2 Only if a nation perceives that continuing observance of the treaty will sustain the state over a long period of time and in changing circumstances, the peace and security promised by the treaty will endure. Machiavelli observed that ". . . fear of loss of the State by a prince or republic will overcome both gratitude and treaties."3