Action Memorandum on the Arab-Isreali Conflict - Coursework Example

of the of the ACTION MEMORANDUM ON ARAB-ISRAEL The Middle East conflict between Palestineand Israel imposes a great threat to the region and its neighbouring countries. The conflict has been on the United States foreign policy agenda where efforts are aimed to reconcile the differences between Palestine and Israel. However, with Hamas gaining popularity and Hezbollah continuing its aggression against people of Israel and in response Israel actions to defend its territory is making the situation complex and degree of conflict aggravated. Numerous peace talks and disintegrated agreements in the current situation of this conflict is not cultivating the desired outcome. The result is spill over into neighbouring countries and humanity at the verge of collapse. The United States need to work swiftly and closely with the Fatah Movement, a moderate party in the puddle, headed by Mehmoud Abbas to solve the conflict which remains unsolved for many years and causing extremism to strengthen its footings amongst the Islamic world. Conflict Summary and Border Issues Beginning in 1948 conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East over the land of historic Israel and Palestine is known as Arab-Israeli Conflict. This difference has led to several wars. Since 1979 several peace accords have been signed in order to address the conflict (Jones). Ever since the Jews persecution by the Nazis, to call their home, the Jewish refugees were required to search for a land. What well gained land to chose but land that God had graced upon them from their foundation? The land of Palestine was their choice (Guardian ) .This invasion of Arabs land by Jews aggravated the sense of hatred and anger towards Jew. The mistreatment of Jews in Europe could not push Arabs to give up their land for Jews. This led to numerous battles for control of towns and cities of Palestine. Palestine was controlled by Britain at that time, but the flaring temper of Jews and Arabs was uncontrollable. Feeling the aftermath of World War II, its forces were pulled out of Palestine and put into the hands of the United Nation. The UN tried in turn the separation of land between Jewish and Arab states. Introducing the Jews in Palestine was power exertion by the western nations, is the Arabs perception (Israel-Palestina).UN was not actually exerting undue power but was just trying to help Jews find home. It was quite unintelligent move to place them in Palestine. UN continued to place the Jews on Arab territory, although they knew that Arabs would feel outraged. The UN may have a problem solving approach, but such sensitive decisions need to be thought out carefully before implementing a proper strategy. UN could have an idea that these two groups cannot live together with harmony and peace. UN placed two groups together, with good intentions, which resulted in war from then on until now. The Arabs refused to give up land to the Jews. In spite of this, in May of 1948, the Jews announced the creation of Israel in the land that was set-aside for the Jews by the UN. The Arabs saw it as another display of the western nation’s dominant powers over the Middle East this triggered the Arab nations to vow the destruction of Israel. They had declared war but Israel had successfully defended itself against the separate military forces of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Another war was established in 1956 by Israeli, French, and British forces when Egypt was attacked. Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal was the reason for this (Lesch). Arab-Israeli relations are deteriorating to their lowest point, with increasing and amplifying violence. Nevertheless, the brutality of the problems may drive the parties to generate opportunities for new efforts and reassess long-stagnant issues to resolve this conflict. Israel had started the construction of wall in 2002 with a perspective to stop “terrorist” attacks and saying that the route of the fence has been determined solely on the basis of security needs and topographical considerations. For resolution the Palestinian perspective on negotiation is that International law is on their side and has been critical of Israel’s settlement policies. It is their land settlement that represents inequality and a lack of justice. On the other hand Israelis say settlements are an integral project to the state and tied into state founding narrative, political power, and economy. Israel has a duty to house its citizens and the settlements are “home” for thousands of Israelis. Suggested Resolution Objectives Objectives towards this conflict resolution include educating the policymaking group on how to apply influence to go forward in a peace process, the role of U.S. and the international community to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict. Furthermore, by evaluating the dynamics of this conflict and how political groups and key communal actors, Islamic movements inclusive, and their affect on the effort made for the initiation of peace process. Similarly, elements like media, training, and the development of effective teaching tools for the classroom and the community for managing the conflict. Other objective can be cultivating relationships within key sectors of Arab and Israeli and by accepting the religious dimensions of the conflict A few of the recent activities include exit of Israel from Gaza and four communities in northern Samaria in August 2005 in order to create the opportunity for peace. Hamas celebrated the withdrawal as a victory. Hamas armed resistance drove out Israel, giving credibility to that strategy against Israel. Furthermore, though Israel claimed to be withdrawing, it was actually developing new settlements and building the security barrier in the West Bank (Kohanteb). Hamas – a hurdle in peace Hamas is a terrorist organization whose main goal is to destroy Israel. When Palestinians elected them, it was an affront to Israel and a declaration that Israel had no partner for peace. The election of Hamas was a purely internal issue. Hamas ran on a domestic reform platform, capitalizing on widespread discontent with years of Fatah corruption and ineffectiveness and its own reputation as a social service provider. Much of its campaign focused on internal Palestinian issues, playing down the conflict with Israel. The Hamas take-over in Gaza opened the way for the resumption of talks between Israel and the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank led by Mahmoud Abbas. The Hamas take-over in Gaza heralded an unprecedented period of disunity in the Palestinian national movement and internal violence between dissenting factions. Ismail Haniya, former Palestinian prime minister, ruled out setting up a separate state ruled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip saying that “Gaza belongs to all the Palestinian people” (Bickerton and Klaunsner). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested that the Arab-Israeli conflict ought to be solved by sending the Jews back to Europe and this is not the only one thing that Jews immigration will lead to conflict resolution and peace (Lesch). Conclusion The aim is to convert the current ‘lose-lose conflict between Arabs and Jews into a ‘win-win peaceful outcome for both sides, which requires dismantling Palestinian institutions, reeducating Palestinians about the historical facts of Jews and Israelis. Furthermore, a resettlement solution in which the Palestinians are sent somewhere else this is supposed to be phased, peaceful and long-term. It should be conducted in an orderly and planned way, with full compensation for any left behind property, and with new land, housing, employment, and general infrastructure provisions enabling the resettled communities to get a respectable standard of living. In Israel, political groups like Anarchists against the Wall, Israeli National Traitor Anarchists, and Amoria have been advocating a solution that suggests no two-state vs. one-state settlement. Amoria, a strong intentional community states that they wish to create in Knaan (Canaan), the land which is called Israel by some and Palestine by others. Furthermore, anarchists are of the opinion that people in the region are anarchists and they are opposed to the state system that oppresses all people on the planet and the planet itself. Hence, they all suggest that we sidestep this semantic political conflict by advocating not a one-state solution, or two-state solution, but a NO-state solution in the Land of Canaan (Bickerton and Klaunsner). The ultimate solution to this seems vague from this point since the Palestinian’s and Israeli’s perceptions are on opposite nodes from one another. Works Cited Bickerton, I and C Klaunsner. History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Prentice Hall, 2006. Guardian . The Arab-Israeli Conflict. 2008. 22 Feburary 2009 . Israel-Palestina. The Arab-Israeli Conflict. 2009. 22 Feburary 2009 . Jones, K. "Borders, Settlers and Jerusalem." 19 February 2009. Kohanteb, S. "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Deconstructing Narratives and Identifying Prospects for Peace." One Voice. Lesch, D. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History. Oxford University Press, 2007. Read More