The land of Palestine

The land of Palestine is considered holy for the Muslims and the Jews, the Jews consider it as the promised homeland from god. The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians dates back to the time of the Ottoman Empire in the 1880s. At that time, the Muslim Arabs predominantly inhabited the land of Palestine where as the Arab Christians and the Jews were present in smaller groups. It was the idea of the Promised Land, which inspired the Jews to come and settle in the land of Palestine.It was in Europe where the early Zionist movement started which promoted the idea of Jews having a â€Å"state of their own† which should be in the Land of Israel (Palestine). In 1897 the World Zionist Organization was founded by Herlz â€Å"declared that the aim of Zionism was to establish ‘a national home for the Jewish people secured by public law'†¦ this idea began more pronounced among Jews and got immense support from the West because of the riots against Jews which prov ed murderous for the Jews .The mass killings of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II in which about six millions Jews were cruelly murdered under the rule of Hitler calling it the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. These killing by the Nazis intensified the international support for the creation of a homeland for the Jews. The Zionist movement overlooked a major factor before promoting the idea of a state in Palestine, which was that another people, the Muslim Arabs, already occupied it.More interestingly, the West and Europe also ignored this crucial problem this was due to the fact that idea of a Jewish state attracted the British for religious as well as practical purposes. It was 1917 in which the British army took control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and in the same year Balfour, declaration was passed which was seen as a promise made by Britain to the Jews for further increasing its efforts for a Jewish national home in Palestine. A point that is to be noted h ere is that after the second world war Jews made a 33% of the total population in Palestine where as in 1922 they were a mere 11%.They saw the increasing number of Jews in their homeland as a conspiracy against them and their homeland the Jews were looked upon as outsiders. They also became greatly influenced by the European anti-Semitism and adopted many ideas and claims of Holocaust deniers as well as the anti-Zionist ideology of radical Jewish intellectuals. The newly created UN suggested dividing the country into two one for the Arabs and the other part for the Jews, and Jerusalem was to be assigned as a corpus separatum meaning an international city.The Jewish community accepted the plan as they had nothing to lose, in fact they were at last achieving what they have always wanted, and the Palestinians on the other hand saw it as a division of their homeland. Shortly after this suggested UN plan, a war between the Palestinians and the Jews started in the beginning of the Decembe r of 1947. The condition worsened in January when the Arab Liberation Army and help from Egypt came in, in the form of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni who intervened with several hundred of his men of the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas.The Jewish authorities were funded by sympathizers in US and greatly assisted by Stalin. This war also marks the massacre of the Arabs by the Jewish army and the expulsion of about 250000 Palestinians to leave their country and take refuge in the neighboring countries. More successful Jewish offensives created a united front around Jerusalem. The Jews declared the state of Israel on 14 May 1948 exactly a day before the British Mandate of Palestine was to be expired, furthermore its immediate acceptance by the Soviet Union, the United States, and other Western countries, enraged the Arab States greatly.`Therefore over the next few days the newly created state was attacked by the combine forces of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, the state which has taken the right of the Arab homeland and in way this proves to be right too because it was the Jews who were the immigrants. This action was declared as an illegal aggression by the US and the Soviet Union whereas China backed the Arab cause. Volunteers from both the United States and Canada supported the Israeli army. The outcome of the war was a disaster for the Arab States and the Israeli forces not only managed to protect their territory but also expanded their holdings.In 1949 Israel signed peace treaties with the Arab states and the new borders now was 50% more than what the UN partition plan proposed. Egypt controlled the hold of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was under the control of Tran Jordan. War resulted in the displacement of around 711,000 Palestinians from their homes, a proposed figure by the UN. Although a UN resolution was passed which allowed the refugees to return home but somehow the resolution was completely ignored which created the major Palestinian Refugee Crisis and the West too failed too respond.At last the dream of Zionism was achieved even though it marked a historic change in the state of the Jews i. e. the former â€Å"oppressed were now the oppressors† and as in the future the further killing and massacre of the Palestinians, including women and children will confirm the authenticity of the statement. Literature Review: Avi Shalaim wrote in his book, The politics of partition, 1921-1951: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine, â€Å"The clash between Arabs and Jews in Palestine is one of the deepest, gravest, and most protracted international conflicts of modern times.It is difficult to imagine more bitter enmity than that between the Arabs and Jews during the decades leading up to and following the emergence of the State of Israel. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli conflict has sometimes been described as a ‘pure' conflict, that is to say one in which the interests of the two prot- agonists are completely and irreconcilably oppose d. † For years now countless tragedies have been encountered on both sides, the majority of which the Palestinians have encountered which includes the ruthless killing of even children by the Israeli forces and the demolition of the Palestinian houses.The Palestinians on the other hand reply to this kind of Israeli atrocities by any available means this may include rocket attacks on Jewish settlements or suicide bombings. Palestinians are constantly trying to get this territory back by any means possible, and then come the issue of the Palestinian refugees who despite having their own homeland are being forced to live in neighboring countries because Israel refuses to acknowledge them. The international community and the UN have criticized Israel countless times on target killings and human rights violation but Israel seems adamant.The only way through this conflict as the international community or the West saw was to provide the Palestinian with a homeland and to persuade Is rael to leave the Arab territories. There had been treaties and accords for this purpose over the past many years, the first prominent among them were Camp David Accords which was initiated by the President of US Jimmy Carter. The accord was agreed between the President of Egypt and the prime minister of Israel Menachem Begin. Two agreements were signed between Egypt and Israel the framework consisted of three parts.The first part outlined to establish a self governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to implement the UN resolution 242, which called for â€Å"the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East† to be achieved by â€Å"the application of both the following principles:†. â€Å"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict† and: â€Å"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency†. The second part of the agreement was concerned about the relations between Israel and Eg ypt.The third part defined to principles upon which Israel was supposed to improve its relations with neighboring Arab countries. Egyptian sovereignty was to be exercised on the internationally recognized border between Egypt and the mandated Palestine. The withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai and the use of airfields by Israel al-Arish, Rafah, Ras en-Naqb, and Sharm el-Sheikh for civilian purposes only. The right of free passage by ships of Israel through the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal based on the Constantinople Convention of 1888 applying to all nations.The Strait of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba are international waterways to be open to all nations for unimpeded and non suspend able freedom of navigation and over flight. The construction of a highway between the Sinai and Jordan near Eilat with guaranteed free and peaceful passage by Egypt and Jordan; and the stationing of military forces were also agreed upon in the accord. The signing of this agreement triggered enough hatre d for Sadat in the Arab world that he was assassinated as he was seen as a traitor to the Palestinian cause.Israel greatly benefited from this accord as compared to Egypt because peace on the border meant that the Israeli forces could now lower their alert level. The peace agreement was also seen as an agreement between the Israelis and the President of Egypt only because his people or the rest of the Arab world, which his assassination confirmed, did not share his views. Perhaps the most notable step in the peace process was the Oslo process in 1993, in which a framework for the future relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians were worked out.A US president, Bill Clinton this time, PLO’s Chairman Yasser Arafat representing Palestine and Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin representing the Israelis, again initiated this. This accord provided the creation of a Palestinian authority, which was to be responsible for the administration of territory assigned und er its control. This accord also called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from some parts of Gaza and the West Bank. Both sides accepted territorial compromise as the basis for the settlement of their long and better conflict.The Oslo accord was a great breakthrough for Israel, a number of Arab states thought about establishing diplomatic relations with Israel after PLO’s recognition of Israel. The Arab League too debated upon lifting of economic sanctions from Israel, which have been in place since the creation of Israel. Every thing changed for Israel and its neighboring Arab countries after the Oslo accord. Still after the Oslo process, the expansions of settlements continued and hence further disturbing the already worsening economic conditions.There fore creating doubts, frustration, and thereby causing a drop in the support for the Oslo agreement. The agreement has five chapters, which consist of thirty-one articles, seven annexes, and nine attached maps. The most im portant part of this agreement was the recognition of Palestinian Interim Self- Government Authority. The agreement also provided a safe passage of transport and person between the Gaza strip and the West Bank, it refrained each sides from any kind of hostile propaganda against each other.Palestinian Police was given the authority to be established and operate in coalition with the Israeli forces. The agreement also outlined the plan for the transfer of power from Israel to the Palestinian authorities. The agreement divided the territory into three areas Area A which was supposed to be under the control of Palestinian authority, Area B comprised both of the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities, the Palestinian was to control civilian authority while Israel continued to be in charge of security, Area C was to be under exclusive control of Israel.This process saw a downfall with the assassination of Rabin and the Likud party coming into power, which came as a serious blow to the pe ace process. The Likud party destroyed homes of the Arabs, confiscated their lands, started building new Jewish settlements, and opened an archeologist tunnel near Muslim Holy places in Old Jerusalem. Avi Shlaim wrote in his book International Relations of the Middle East, â€Å"That the basic reason for the failure of Oslo to resolve the conflict is that Israel, under the leadership of the Likud, reneged on its side of the deal.By resorting to violence, the Palestinians contributed to the breakdown of trust without which no political progress is possible. But the more fundamental cause behind the loss of trust and the loss of momentum was the Israeli policy of expanding settlements on the West Bank which carried on under Labour as well as Likud. This policy precluded the emergence of a viable Palestinian state without which there can be no end to the conflict. † In May 1999, the Likud party was overthrown and the Labor party came into power by a landslide victory.Ehud Barak was elected as the prime minister but Barak lacked Rabin’s vision and his style was arrogant and authoritarian and he approached diplomacy as the extension of war by other means. Under Barak’s regime the expansion of Jewish settlement which was seen as a barrier to the peace process. There fore one more agreement with this new government was needed and quite necessary because a deadlock had been created between the Israelis and the Palestinians. On July5, 2000 Bill Clinton invited Arafat and Barak to negotiate the peace process.Barak appeared believing that America would help impose his agenda in the final settlement. Barak suggested an independent Palestinian state, which would consist of the whole Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank, he also agreed for the return of the refugees that would involve 500 people a year. He agreed on partitioning of the city of Jerusalem, but the Palestinian authority refused this point because they wanted exclusive sovereignty over all Arab suburbs and over Temple Mount.The Palestinian authority was divided on the proposal some saw it as a historical breakthrough others saw it as a compromise with their national right. Further more the delegation came under pressure from Egypt and Saudi Arabia not to compromise the holy places of the Muslims. Therefore, Arafat rejected most of the proposals, the summit ended in failure, and very easily, Barak and Clinton put the whole blame of the failure on the shoulders of Arafat. The Palestinians accused Bill Clinton of siding with Barak, therefore Arafat returned home once again empty handed.According to Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, in their book, Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of World Order â€Å"the policy of using US moral, material, and military support to give Israel the confidence to go forward in the peace process, has not achieved the desired results. The best proof is Bill Clinton. He was, in the words of one Israeli newspaper, the last Zionist. Yet, even he could not sweet talk Israel into a final settlement. If Clinton could not do it, nobody can. That leaves only one possible path to progress: an externally-imposed solution. † [1] The failure of the Summit at Camp David started an outbreak of violence began.The violence was further sparked by the visit of Israel’s opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the site of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. There fore the second intifada, an Arabic word for uprising, started. The Palestinians saw the Israeli-American proposal at Camp David a complete surrender to Israel’s demand, they knew that they have been malevolently duped with not even a minimal solution to the issues which constitute the Palestine question. It is against this background and Sharon’s provocative visit to Al ‘Aqsa that the Second Intifada erupted.The uprising resulted in a new wave of brutal killings from the Israeli side to stop the rebellion which included the killing of a 12 ye ar old, the Palestinian responded by suicide bombings attack on Israeli civilians. An article in Australian for Palestine stated that â€Å"Since the Al ‘Aqsa Intifada, Israel defines the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories as â€Å"a situation of hostility† rather than a â€Å"belligerent occupation† and therefore it contends that the Hague Regulations which protect civilians under military occupation no longer apply.Furthermore, it contends that it is not responsible for compensating the Palestinians for any damage caused or any property taken. † This incident also increased the international involvement; according to a report, Israel annually receives $1. 2 billion in economic aid and $1. 8 billion in military aid from the United States, excluding loan guarantees, besides that many humanitarian groups also responded greatly after this incident. the incident also provided a significant shift in U.S policy. The Palestenian leader was now not welcomed in Washington by the new Bush adminstration, furthermore Bush called on to the Palestinians â€Å"to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror†, hence clearly indicating the shift of policy towards the Palestinian leader. To maintained peace he also outlined detailed steps prominent among them were the Palestinian rejection of terrorism (suicide bombing) and an end to Israel’s settlement expansion.Haig Khatchadourian in his book, The Quest for Peace between Israel ad Palestinians, said, â€Å"Consequently, its brilliant military victories over the Arab states are bound to remain very incomplete victories so long as it clings to the land that Palestinians rightfully call their own. Only when the heavy chains binding occupier and occupied are broken, and Palestinians become their own masters, can real peace and stability in the region become more than a wistful hope. For then not just sulh but salaam should become the order of the day between the ma jority of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and Israel.† In April 2003, these detailed steps took the form of the â€Å"road map to peace. † The Palestinian elected a new leader, Mahmoud Abbas, which made both the US and Israel happy because they saw him more liberal and more importantly not as a â€Å"terrorist† as in case of Arafat. These new developments made the way for a major summit of Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian leaders, and US but the summit proved a failure. The road map to peace aims in creating an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.Israel on the other hand would accept the state and end its settlements; the Palestinian on the other hand would have to stop their attacks on Israel. The road map’s process consists of three-phase development; phase1 of the project requires the Palestinian to stop any kind of violence against Israel, which is seen as an act of terrorism by both Israel and the U. S. it urges the Palestini an to make political reforms and hold fair elections. Israel on the other hand would have to withdraw and freeze on settlement expansions.The phase2 consisted of a revival of the destroyed Palestinian economy by means of an International Conference, which will support the recovery of the Palestinian economy, which would ultimately lead to the establishment of a Palestinian homeland. This part of the plan will also concentrate upon issues like water resources, arms control, economic development etc. it would also urge the Arab states to revive links with Israel, which were before the intifada period. The third phase was the confirmation stage, a second calling of an international conference and the final status and agreement of the borders.This phase was the permanent end to the conflict. The issue of the city of Jerusalem and the refugee problem also falls in the third phase of this project. Both the sides i. e. the Palestinian and the Israel have concerns over this road map. The in ternational community has become very much involved for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on this road map project. A group known as the Quartet formed which consisted of representatives from the Russia, the United Nation, and the European Union, which began shaping up the international policy necessary for a peace accord.Case Study: Many amendments and revisions has been taken place to the statement which was issued by the Quartet regarding the roadmap for peace on September 17, 2002, therefore the program’s outline is changing with time seeing the international events that has taken place. As stated earlier both the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities have reservations upon the project’s various versions, which they have reported, but still some experts say based on evidence that the Palestinians are opening up and beginning to comply with what the roadmap has to offer.On the other hand, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon only made empty promi ses and there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel would go ahead with the plan. In the October of the same year, the American President Bush amended and issued his version of the roadmap, which was more detailed than the previous version and was based on the input, which he received from the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. The key reservations from the side of the Israeli government is the issue of terrorism i. e.how will the Palestinian authorities act if the terrorist activities continue and would the Palestinian government be able to handle the terrorism. The Israelis feel that this roadmap for peace may fail due to the same reasons which were responsible for the failure of the Oslo process i. e. many agreements were made but nothing were done to implement them effectively. The Palestinian authority on the other hand has accepted the plan but has not implemented the key requirement of the plan, which was to put an end to terrorist activities.Likewise, the Israeli governmen t later agreed with the plan but made fourteen reservations on the plan and like the Palestinian authority has not implemented the crucial step of the first phase, which was to freeze all the activities relating to the settlement activity and the removal of illegal check posts from the Palestinian territories. The effect that the Iraq war has on the roadmap for peace or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general is immense. Due to the failure of the Bush policies in Iraq and the loss of thousands of innocent lives has made President Bush’s policies regarding Iraq a target for much criticism.Furthermore, these policies have created a feeling of great hatred among the Muslims of the world against these policies and the West in general, because of which terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda take advantage and recruit and brainwash these already angry Muslims. Therefore, to redeem his position in the eyes of the world and especially among the Muslim world peace in the Middle Eas t seems the best option available. Therefore, the Bush administration has to come up with options that will be acceptable to both the sides and if proposed properly Israel may accept the roadmap as being under pressured from the Quartet.Israel has faced a lot of criticism from the international community when it comes to human right violation, which has left Israel vulnerable so the Quartet could impose a roadmap on it. In 2004, Bush presented the roadmap with two significant changes as a part of the new American policy for the roadmap, and expected a final outcome of the conflict. The Israeli leader Ariel Sharon readily accepted the newer version of the plan as the two changes that Bush made seemed favored Israel a lot. The first change was on the issue of borders, which Bush suggested that it would be unwise for Israel to go back to the borders as in 1949.The second issue was of the Palestinian refugees, for which Bush stated that: â€Å"It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than Israel. † So no final agreement was reached. The same year saw the demise of Arafat which the US saw as a significant moment in Palestinian history.Abbass was elected in january 2005 and was invited to the white house hoping for a breakthrough atlast in the conflict after Arafat’s death who was regarded as a terrorist by the American authority. The summer another wave of voilence erupted between Palestinian and the Israelis and faded the hope for a peaceful outcome. The same year in August the world saw the withdrawl of Israeli forces and settlers from the Gaza strip and the West Bank, the withdrawl was initiated by the Israeli prime minister ariel sharon, who also left the Likud party joined a more moderate one.The withdrawl was heav ily appreciated all around the world and the international for once saw a ray of hope amidst the darkness of the bloody conflict. In January 2006 Sharon got a massive heart stroke and retreated from the party , the same month saw the Palestinian ruling party Fatah got defeated by Hamas, a group which the USA had labeled as a terrorist organisation long ago. Hamas has always held the views for the destrution of Israel.Therefore immediately after the Hamas’s victory USA and Israel called for the financial and the diplomatic isolation of the new Palestinian government and this also put an end to any more peace talks with the Palestinian government because both Israel and USA refused to recgnise Hamas in the government. Ehud Olmert succeded Sharon in the elections of May 2006 as the prime minister of Israel, who promised the completion of the withdrawl of Israeli forces from most of the parts of the West Bank by 2010. in the same year fresh clashes started between Hamas and the i sraeli forces in the Gaza strip.In the same year Israel clashed with Hezbollah in Lebanon and suffered casualities and upon admitting defeat withdrew its forces from Lebanon. This conflict had an important impact on the road map and many interpreted these clashes as an end to the roadmap peace process. In the October of the same year an Israeli news paper revealed that the government was still developing new settlements in the West Bank, even though Olmert promised the withdrawl and the removal of the settlements. Many of these settlements were being made on Palestinian property that even the Israeli government recognise as being theirs.For a fear of a political crisis with the USA and for the fear of being criticised by the international community , the report was kept a secret. The situation of the Middle East was worsened by civil clashes between the two major Palestenian groups Hamas and Fatah. Whether or not the Roadmap for Peace succeded or achieved its desired results or outc omes is really hadrd to tell because the success or the failure of the project solely depends on how sincerely both the parties work for the restoration of peace making sure that their ideologica differences do not interfere with the peace plan.The international community have countless times tried to maintain peace between the two sides by proposing a solution which would be acceptable to both the parties, but every time due to some reason or the other the peace process seems to end with completion possibly because the terms and the conditions of the proposed agreements were not suitable for one of the party or during the peace process a deadlock creates due to clashes or hostilities e. g. the second intifada.The Roadmap for peace plan guaranteed the creation of an independant Palestinian state wxisting side by side with Israel in peace, it also promises the Palestinians that Israel will withdraw its troops and freeze the building of its settlements on Palestinian territories. So f ar nothing of this sort has happened so baically the roadmap as I see it has failed because it failed to provide what it promised to the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Palestinians still have to live under a constant threat of being attacked or even killed by the Israeli forces anytime, not even the children are safe.The Israelis have to face the Palestinian revenge when some loved one of theirs die in a suicide attack. Both sides have endured countless casualties mostly civilians and the innocent people. Further more the building of the wall around the Palestinians have complicated issues even further and has restricted the Palestinians to a limited area of land only, there are only two openings and travelling to the world outside the wall is not possible air, sea or land. It is seen as another illegal attempt tocapture Palestinian land.The international community have proposed many proposals inaddition to the ones mentioned above but all of them have not proved any useful. USA has been playing the role of an initiator of peace talks between the two authorities for many years now, but as USA is a close ally of Israel and have political advantages to reap from Israel, the muslim world in general see the sfforts being made by the American government as inefficient or being biased and always in the favor of Israel.They feel that it is in the power of the American government to force Israel out of Palestenian areas and to make Israel stop the killings of the innocent but still America is reluctant to do such a thing and make peace in the region. The United Nations too has passed many declaration agaisnt the violations of human rights, which includes the killings and the destruction of homes of the Palestinian, by the Israeli government but Israel has never taken any heed.The united nations has also passed a number of resolutions against the barrier and the International Court of Justice has also issued an order which describes the barrier as illegal an orders to be stripped down . Israel on the other hand has ruled out the decision of the International Court saying that it did not considered the court’s jurisdication. In a 2004 report Amnesty International wrote that â€Å"The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.† The world council of churches has also condemned the barrier saying that it is a serious violation of human rights and humanitarian consequences owing to the construction of the barrier. Some international governments do support the Israeli actions but still oppose the barrier as it is built outside the 1949 armistice lines. Conclusion: The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians have been going around for decades it has not only sabotage peace in that particular region but has also effected the neighboring countries as well.The conflict has created many problems and many enemies for the state of Israel. Many people think I srael as an illegal state which donot have the right to exist, where as there are a group of people which agree the right of Israel to exist as a nation, as a state but not at the cost of the annexation of Palestinian land and not by the killing of the Palestinian. The Roadmap for Peace, even though has been accepted by all the sides but still has done little to promote peace in the region because no sincere efforts have been made to implement the plan.However over years of negotiations the RoadMap remains the only alternative that leaders from both the sides have agreed upon , whereas agreements like the Geneva initiative still has a long way to go before it is officially accepted by the leaderships of the two parties. Many experts view the geneva accord as a better means of promoting peace among israelis and the palestinians because the accord provides many realistic solutions to problems which have been evaded in the past agreements. An article in the Israeli news paper commented thatTel Aviv Ma’ariv (Israeli, Hebrew-language, centrist), April 22: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict today isn't just a conflict between leaders and worldviews, it is a conflict between two peoples filled with bitterness and hatred, between parents and children who have lost many of their relatives and their belief in peace. They will not place their destiny in airy promises of a new Middle East. There is not, and there cannot be, an agreement for mutual trust between the two peoples in this manner. Perhaps in the next generation†¦. [U. S.President George] Bush's road map is a positive step but nothing more. Even if both sides agreed to accept it exactly as it is written, without changes or comments (and there is no possibility of that happening), there is nothing in the road map or in Bush’s vision that will allow the spanning of a bridge across the deep abyss between the two peoples and which would bring an end to the dispute. —Dan Shilon As far as I am concerned and I see it the palestinian are the opressed here, because as I see it the Jews were the one who were the outsiders, the immigrants, it was the courtesy a