Essay Example on Palestine-Israel: A Conflict From 1948 to Present

Introduction

The Palestine-Israel conflict began when the state was established in 1948. Inter-communal violence between the Arabs (Palestine) and the Jews (Israel) increased, and the hostility erupted to full-scale civil war. This conflict has never ceased, and it is the conflict that is witnessed up to this day between these two countries. The conflict can be traced many years before the 1948 partitioning of the Palestinian state to comprise of an independent Jewish state (Israel) and an independent Arab state(Palestine). In 1947 The united Nations assembly set up a special committee made of selected countries to prepare a report on the issue of Palestine, and from the moment this committee was set the conflict escalated with a majority of Arab states rooting for the idea of not allowing a Jewish state. By the time the committee presented its report to the united nations, the division between the Jews and Arabs in the region was even worse. When the united nations adopted and allowed partitioning, the conflict went full scale. The reasoning by the jews was that it is their holy land and they have a right claim in it, while the Arabs believed the territory was forcefully taken away from them. From this perspective, I believe that these two states can come up with a solution to this conflict if they were left to sit down together and implement a peace process. In my opinion that these other outside forces like fellow Arab states and those countries that are pro-Israel that make this peace process a mirage.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A two-state solution

Since the start of the conflict, the main instigators of this conflict are the spectator countries. The two states have countries that side with their believed side of the story. The continued taking sides by these other friendly nations make the conflict even worse. It all started when the United Nations tried to come up with a solution to this Palestinian conflict. Instead of ensuring there is complete consensus between the two sides that is the Jews and Arabs they hurriedly took a vote. This vote produced a majority side, but it did not seek to tackle the real issue. Out of the countries that participated in the united nation' vote, 33 states voted for partitioning, thirteen countries opposed while ten countries did not participate(Benny Morris,2008). Even though a three-quarter majority was achieved to pass the resolution, the united nations should not have whished away the reservations of these other twenty-three states. A conflict of this magnitude should not have been subjected to a vote before more than ninety percent of the participating member states were on the same side, this would have been achieved through continued dialogue until a common ground was achieved.

After the resolution was adopted, it sparked attacks between Arabs and Jews in Palestine and all over the world, by march of 1948 it is believed over 1000 people were killed and more 2000 injured . in April the worst attack known as the Deir Yassin massacre happened where a group of Israel paramilitary descended on a Palestinian Arab village with over 600 people (Benny Morris, 2005). I start base my argument on this. Since the united nations witnessed all this violence and never sought to intervene, then it was clear that Arabs and jews in the territory were the only people who could come up with a solution to the problem that was affecting their people. Since the two countries with the support of their friendly states have never stopped to consider that there can be peace if they configured ways of living with each other amicably on their own.

Over time political leaders have ruled the two states and there came a time when peace was almost gotten. A time when two leaders Palestinian Yasser Arafat and Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and their negotiators started acting without paying attention to their intermediaries (Mizan Lisa,2019). There was a tremendous development in the talks which culminated in the Oslo accord. The two states made some agreements that saw a tremendous improvement in relations between the two states. It provides enough evidence that there can be peace between Palestine and Israel if they agree to a two-state process. The Oslo accord earned these two leaders, including Israel foreign minister a Nobel peace prize. The prize is given to individuals who have the greatest contribution to the human race. The argument here is there can be peace between Palestine and Israel if they were left to handle the issues that affect their peace. As the United Nations watched over all the violence that took place during the portioning of the territories, so should other intermediary states leave these two countries to find peace. Both countries know very well the price they had to pay for lack of peace between them. Israel had to use high sums of money running into billions just to ensure they protect their people from a neighbour who they were sharing borders before 1948. The notion is the citizens of Israel, and those of Palestine can live together, trade, intermarry, go to school and even befriends if allowed to. They can start fostering relationships from the lowest level and eventually, they will come to accept each other as neighbours. Palestinians have also lost a lot of their people in the conflict, and I'm sure they do not like to keep on burying their loved ones, so is Israel. Therefore it is my opinion, the biggest threat to these two nations in the context of peace are the intermediaries as Mizan (2019), calls them. On the side of Arabs, there are intermediary states which keep pushing Palestine to continue with their stand since as the conflict continues they are guaranteed a market for arms and other machinery that they sell to Palestine. The same case applies to Israel these conflicts are always benefitting someone somewhere and as seen since the inception of the conflict the finger can be pointed at United Nations member states who were there during the adoption of the resolution. They should have pushed for a local solution that was agreeable between Israel and Palestine if they really wanted peace between the two states. But since most of them had already taken sides for selfish reasons, they did not want the conflict over.

In a research report prepared by Anthony et al. (2015), they have a few recommendations which seek to support my view. One of their conclusions is a two-state solution provides by far the best economic outcomes for both Israel and Palestine. The cheapest way this conflict can be solved is if the two states agreed to resolve it themselves. The fact that these other intermediaries benefit from the conflict makes it more expensive for these two countries. It is my opinion this is what had pulled Yasser Arafat and Israel prime minister together. The two leaders realized this conflict was destroying their countries beyond imaginable lengths. The reason why these talks failed by large is believed that there was infiltration by the so-called intermediaries. The conflict has been ongoing for over 72 years that is counting from 1948 and the nearest that the two countries were to peace, was when they agreed to sit down together without intermediaries. Anthony et al. (2015), estimated by 2024 Gross domestic product would fall by 46 percent in the west bank and Gaza area, also Israel's gross domestic product will have gone down by 10 percent. The figures are evidence that the conflict is taking its toll on the two countries and if these trends continue, these two countries might find themselves with no other alternative but to talk to each other and find a way of ending this conflict. Once they continue losing their economic upper hand, they will lose their allies who are supporting each side mostly because they are benefitting from their economy. The two countries share resources that are used on both sides of the borders. Resources like rivers, holy sites, among others. Since they are able to share these, then they can also share the same ideology and foster peace. In the recent past, the united states of America moved its embassy to Jerusalem. The city is one of the territories that are controversial in the conflict. The moveby United States proves two things, allies of these two states are not ready to see the conflict resolved because if the United States was not willing to move its embassy with the full knowledge that Jerusalem is one of controversial, there could be no riots that day that ended with over 60 people dead. The next point if Israel and Palestine do not have these allies to cheer them on, they will have no other option but to come together and foster peace.

The conflict between Palestine and Israel has always been fuelled by ethnic or cultural differences and beliefs; there is no chance that an outside force will ever come to the two states and understand why what they are always fighting. Most of the external negotiators who intervene most probably find themselves listening to one side of the story more than the other hence the negotiations break down. In my opinion, both countries might have valid reasons according to them why they feel they are wronged by the other. An external negotiator will always listen to these reasons as an outsider; there will be no way they will be able to validate these reasons. Therefore the two countries who understand their history better than anyone else are best placed to solve it. A very good example is seen in an African country called Rwanda. A country which has two predominant tribes, due to manipulation by external forces, psychological factors, and domestic pressures, in 1994 there was a genocide where one tribe was targeted It led to more than 800,000 people being killed (Shaw Eric, 2012). Today Rwanda boasts of the fastest growing economy in the east and central Africa after they decided to seek internal solutions for their problem. The tribes live harmoniously together.

Conclusion

To conclude, every state has its own ideology why or why not the conflict exists, but since all other avenues have been tried and failed to bring peace between the two states, then it is time to take the only route never take. The only route to prove enough that it can work. The only route to have almost solved the problem was it not interfered with. This route is possible and can work. I believe that these two states can come up with a solution to this conflict if they were left to sit down together, formulate and implement a peace process.

References

Anthony C. Ross, Daniel Egel, Charles P. RiesCraig A. Bond, Andrew M. Liepman, Jeffrey Martini Steven Simon, ShiraEfron, Bradley D. SteinLynsay Ayer, Mary E. Vaiana Anthony (2015) The cost of Israel Palestine conflict. RAND Corporation https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR740-1/RAND_RR740-1.pdf

Benny morris. (2005). The Historiography Deir Yassin massacre of Deir Yassin. Journal of Israeli History - J ISR HIST. 24. 79-107. 10.1080/13531040500040305.

Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press

Mizan, Lisa. (2019). From Camp David to The Oslo Accords: The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process. 10.13140/RG.2.2.17021.61927.

Shaw, Eric. (2012). The Rwandan Genocide: A Case Study.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264154954_The_Rwandan_Genocide_A_Case_Study/citation/download