The Israel-Palestinian Conflict Essay Paper

The twenty-first century carried with it a slew of life-altering events, a slew of joys, and a slew of tragedies. There are topics that, without a doubt, cannot be overlooked because of their enormous importance and effect on the planet. In the face of today’s tragedies and gloom, everyone is introducing new ideas to communicate with religious institutions, digital technologies, and increased interest. This paper would go into the Israeli-Palestinian crisis on both sides of the positive narrative.
The war between Palestine and Israel is one of the world’s longest-running wars. Most individuals still believed that resolving the issue was the only way to finish various conflicts through the Middle East (Gelvin 252). Moreover, observers still think that the conflict had made the Arabs resent toward the West which also fueled the radical Islamic terrorism. This issue began with a minor violence because Israel wanted to take control over Palestine and with time, things worsened because both parties signed the treaty. Each side of the Israel-Palestine conflict narrative has its own truth (Lazarus 159). The most essential thing to do is to understand how both sides were affected by the disagreement. Each side also interprets its event regarding the stories, omits and demonizes their own contribution to the conflict. Moreover, each state has its reason for denial thus ignoring how their actions ignore their responsibilities.

The story of Palestine focuses on their suffering, victimhood, and dispossession in the deep sense of injustice and why they were punished because of how the Europeans treated the Jews. However, the story leaves out the cause of the violence, their constant refusal to accept the opportunities for accommodation and their weak leadership. The story in Israel emphasizes on how their history was attached to the land, how the UN granted their legitimacy through the partition plan and the constant threat and hostility that was coming from their neighbors (Gelvin 266). The article also elaborates how their call for peace was rejected. The underlying concept is the trauma of the holocaust. They downgraded and rationalized the cruelties of the occupation, aggravated the situation of the western attitude and condescended the disregarding of the local Palestinians population.

The struggle between the Israelites and Arbs was that because they lived in the same area, there has always been a concern within the context of the UN. For instance, Ben Gurion who went to Palestine in 1906, observed that about 700,000 inhabitants existed in Palestine.55, 000, in this case, were Jews. Among the population, only 550 were defined as the Zionist pioneers (Jiryis 118). Demographically, the Jewish community was 8% while the Palestine’s were overwhelming the Arabs. In 1922, the British census showed that the population of the Jews rose to 11% and by the year 1947, it had risen to 33 percent. Most people in Jerusalem were Jewish (Jirvis 125). However, Israel, as discussed by Zangwill (a writer and Zionist), said that “it was a place with no people and for the people are without the lands,” (Jirvis 129). However, this was not the case because not all Zionists thought it in this angel. For instance, in Israel, Asher Ginzberg who was also known as ‘Ahad Ha’am in his literature name also had an English meaning ‘One of the people.’ In the 1890’s Ginzberg was distinguished a cultural Zionist because they had demanded attention from the Arab lands. He said that “The relationship would be enduring and hard if the problem between the two countries wouldn’t go away,” (Svirsky 98).

Arabs, on the other hand, noticed that the Jews were increasing in numbers by buying property and organizing themselves. This caused a serious threat because they felt they were dispossessed. The majority of the Jews ignored the Arabians signs which led to the riots in 1921 and 1929 (Gelvin 270). The Arabs took advantage and attacked the Jewish neighbors which they nicknamed it the “popular uprising” and not riots. This problem was then viewed as; both groups were competing for the same population dominance as well as for the land. The conflict as viewed by the first President of Israel (Chaim Weizmann) was that the disagreement was between two rights. Ben Gurion who was a Jewish agent in 1936 also stated that “with the Arab’s eyes, immigration to them is on a large scale because the lands taken by the Jews are passing through their hands,” (Biemann 165). So did the founder of the Herut movement Jabotinsky who also viewed the conflict as more outspoken. He also stated that the British mandate gave the Jews a national home and expanded Zionism in the Arab land. In this situation, the Arabs were seen to boil over the revolt suppressed by the British, some Jews and a few wealthy Arabs (Biemann 172). The British also placated the Arabs and restricted the Jewish from immigrating which created a strong opposition from the Jewish groups.

In 1937, there was a report from the Peel commission organized by the British which stated that “the situation was difficult because there was an irrepressible conflict between the Arabs and Jews caused by narrow bounds of the small country. Also, both communities did not have any common grounds between them,” (Miller 836). The report at the end recommended that both communities should be separated. In the midst of the World war 11, Grand Mufti a Jerusalem anti-semic chose the Nazis side. The brigade that the Jewish formed that was first opposed by the British later fought the Allies because they were suspicious of their postwar goals (Miller 841). At the end of the war, the UN designed a commission that reviewed the cause of the conflict to have a conclusion as the Peel Commission. After the approval of the UN, the Arabs rejected the plan and war broke out again but this time in two phases:

A civil conflict between Israel and Arab, which resulted in many deaths and the invasion of the Arabs neighbors. In 1949, the war ended with an armistice. The UN later passed the first resolution that constituted to about 700,000 Arabs (Cherry 79). The Israel state for several reasons also denied the judgment because there were so many hostile people among the population and that the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries were equal. After much pressure and discussion, the Israel government agreed to accept 100,000 Arabs (Cherry 82). However, it was ironic because Arabs on the other side rejected the 100,000 Jews offered by Israel because they viewed it as a sign of the Jews to exist in their country again. From this point of view, there was no compromise and no sharing in both communities (Cherry 90). The observations concerning the partition plan in each state was that there was no substantial block to both populations.

Conclusion

Given the long history of the conflict between Arabs and Israel, it can be concluded that both sides cannot agree by themselves. Neither parties can impose any conclusion because there is no military solution. Furthermore, hostility, in this case, will only inflict more conflicts on both sides. Each party, in this case, is contradicted with the version of history. The essay has therefore supported the thesis by showing both sides of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

• Useful info: Our online dissertation writing service has PhD holders from the USA and the UK.

Works Cited

Biemann, Asher D. “David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Renaissance (Review).” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, 2013, pp. 160–182., doi:10.1353/sho.2013.0009.

Gelvin, James L. “The Israel-Palestine Conflict.” 12 Mar. 2013, pp. 247–287., doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139583824.

Cherry. “Increased Constructive Engagement among Israeli Arabs: The Impact of Government Economic Initiatives.” Israel Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, pp. 75–99., doi:10.2979/israelstudies.19.1.75.

Jiryis, Sabri. “Ben Gurion Looks at Israel’s History: Zickronot (Memoirs). . David Ben Gurion. ; Mdenat Yisrael Hamechudeshit (The Restored State of Israel). . David Ben Gurion.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009, pp. 116–131., doi:10.1525/jps.1971.1.1.00p0009f.

Lazarus, Ned. “Making Peace with the Duel of Narratives: Dual-Narrative Texts for Teaching the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Israel Studies Review, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 144–167., doi:10.3167/isf.2008.230106.

Miller, Rory. “The Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis: The Berlin Years.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 47, no. 5, 2011, pp. 835–887. doi:10.1080/00263206.2011.606611.

Svirsky, M. “On the Mechanics of Profanation: Subjectivity and Zionist Divides.” Cultural Politics an International Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 92–104., doi:10.1215/17432197-2397254.