In 2005, the Israeli government decided to give up the Gaza Strip, including Gush Katif, in an effort to bring peace to the middle east. They did not take into consideration much of the consequences of their actions. The attempt to create peace by giving Gush Katif to the Palestinians not only did not have that effect, but the exact opposite effect, creating more violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as a lack of trust between the government and some of the Israeli people.
Gush Katif is a village in the Middle East that is a part of the Gaza Strip. In 2005, it was given to the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Gush Katif was home to 1,800 religious Jewish families, 8,500 people, from both traditional and secular ways of life, diverse ethic groups, and were immigrants as well as born Israelis. Yitzhak Segev, the active governor of Gaza in 1979, said about Gush Katif, “The residents were like one family and that is what kept them strong in the difficult times.”
The village and its people were famous for their work in agriculture. There were about 350 family agricultural enterprises in Gush Katif, whose produce represented about ten percent of all produce grown in Israel, sixty five percent of Israel’s organic produce, ninety percent of Israel’s bug-free leafy vegetables, forty-five percent of tomato exports, ninety-five percent of Israel’s cherry tomato exports, and sixty percent of Israel’s herbs. Sixty percent of Israel’s geranium came from Ganei Tal in Gush Katif. Gush Katif’s hot houses alone, cover an estimated 900-1,000 acres and are estimated to be worth over $80 million.
In 1917, the British captured. In 1948, the the Egyptian Military took over. Israel had nothing to do with Gaza. In 1956,...
... middle of paper ...
...the government will once again make the mistake that they made with Gush Katif and evacuate more families from their homes, some of whom moved there after the expulsion from Gush Katif. The government claims that they agree that giving up the West Bank will not create peace, but they are in a position where they don't have a choice because they have to cooperate with the United States, the providers of financial support to the Israeli Defense Forces.
Although the government did not feel they had a choice in giving away Gush Katif, they still suffered, and continue to suffer severe consequences. This decision brought multiple attacks to the Israelis and caused tension between the Knesset and the people. Clearly, the idea to bring peace to the Middle East by giving over Gush Katif, was a futile effort, and had the opposite effect of the goal it was meant to achieve.
In the midst of that catastrophe, many people took their own lives so they wouldn’t have to face conflict afterwards. This shows why many people think a conflict will never have a positive outcome.
The literary analysis essay for A Separate Peace entitled Chapter 7: After the Fall notes that Gene’s brawl with Cliff Quackenbush occurs for two reasons: the first reason being that Gene was fighting to defend Finny, and the second reason being that Quackenbush is the antithesis of Finny. Cliff Quackenbush calls Gene a “maimed son-of-a-bitch”, since Gene holds a position on the team that is usually reserved for physically disabled students, and Gene reacts by hitting him in the face (Knowles, 79). At first, Gene remarks that he didn’t know why he reacted this way, then he says, “it was almost as though I were maimed. Then the realization that there was someone who was flashed over me”, referring to Finny (Knowles, 79). Quackenbush is “the adult world of punitive authority personified”, his voice mature, his convictions militaristic (Chapter, 76). Quackenbush reminds Gene of the adult world and all of the things that Finny and Devon protected him from, such as war.
According to Shlaim, the conflict begins during World War 1 when the British made various promises to both Jews and Arabs while simultaneously plotting with the French to divide all the territory into spheres of influence . The British assumed that Palestinians and Jews could leave peaceably in a single state, but Britain's obligation to the Jews could only be met at the expense of the Arab majority. The British carved up the territories under their mandate without regard for religious, ethnic, or linguistic composition of their inhabitants.
The fight between Israel and Palestine has been seen as an unfair battle, due to the high-tech supplies given to Israel by the US. Israel’s military is extremely strong and constantly growing, with people joining from all over the world, while Palestine’s main defense is a terrorist group called Hamas. Israel has been forced into building a wall surrounding the Gaza strip to stop these terror attacks from harming the citizens of Israel. Palestine believes that Israel’s fighting is too severe compared to Palestine’s attempts at attacking Israel. Gideon Levy wrote, “Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification to them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law, and wisdom (Document 5, Palestinian View)”. The Palestinians believe that the Israeli military is fighting too much and unfairly, and should not be allowed to take these measures against them.
...d they will receive, whether if it is good land or bad land. An issue that the Parameter failed to resolve is the “right of return” issue. The Parameter states that Palestinians would have to waive their claim to an unlimited “right of return” to Israel Proper. This issue regarding the “right of return” was one of the main reasons why the Camp David 2000 Summit negotiation failed, and since this Parameters still hasn’t found a solution to this issue, it was bound to fail. Another issue the Parameters failed to find a solution is the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. As lenient as how Israel was in the Camp David Summit, they were strong on an issue; this issue was the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Israel wants full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, since this Parameter would give the Palestinian sovereignty, the Israel would have to reject this Parameter.
Israel has been dealing with Palestinian pressures to give back the land that they consider “theirs” and other leaders have had different views on how to handle aggression from the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert’s views included handling the conflict with peace and not using violence. He suggested to Mohamed Abbas a convergence plan which centered around the idea that the Israeli people would be forced out of the West Bank which is an are... ... middle of paper ... ... m. A part of the problem today in this conflict is the people not willing to change or go along with what their leaders enforce and their ideas.
...d took control of the Gaza Strip once again. Anwar el-Sadat then became president after Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1970. In an effort to take control of the Sinai Peninsula, Anwar el-Sadat attacked the Israelis. After a cease-fire, the United Nation’s troops then returned to keep things peaceful. Israel then later withdrew and was only allowed to use it for non-military purposes. In 1978 a peace treaty was established between Egypt and Israel which influenced more peace in the Middle East. Although a formal treaty was signed in 1979. In 1981 Sadat was assassinated and Mohamed Hosni Mubarak followed him in presidency. The Sinai Peninsula was then returned to Egypt in 1982 after the Israeli troops withdrew from the region. Mubarak embraced Sadat’s policies and managed to climb to the top and be once again making Egypt known as one of the leaders of the Arab world.
This marked the beginning of the Palestine armed conflict, one of its kinds to be witnessed in centuries since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1. Characterized by a chronology of endless confrontations, this conflict has since affected not only the Middle East relations, but also the gl...
Lives were taken, the happiness and peace was robbed from the town and the people within, and relationships saw their last day. The impacts of these sacrifices are results that we have no control over. We could all be thinking that a decision we made was vital to the situation, but it could actually just cause more hardship. In the grand scheme of things, the most crucial question is: what sacrifices are actually worth
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” Stated former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir after three fourths of one million Palestinians had been made refugees, over five hundred towns and cities had been obliterated, and a new regional map was drawn. Every vestige of the Palestinian culture was to be erased. Resolution 181, adopted in 1947 by the United Nations declared the end of British rule over Palestine (the region between the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River) and it divided the area into two parts; a state for the Jewish and one for the Arab people, Palestine. While Israel was given statehood, Palestine was not. Since 1947, one of the most controversial issues in the Middle East, and of course the world, is the question of a Palestinian state. Because of what seems a simple question, there have been regional wars among Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, terrorist attacks that happen, sometimes daily, displacement of families from their homes, and growing numbers of people living in poverty. Granting Palestinian statehood would significantly reduce, or alleviate, tensions in the Middle East by defining, once and for all, the area that should be Palestine and eliminating the bloodshed and battles that has been going on for many years over this land.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is an event that has been well documented throughout the course of Middle-Eastern history. The conflict dates back as far as the nineteenth century where Palestine and Zionist, will later be known as Israel, are two communities each with different ideologies had the same overwhelming desire to acquire land. However, what makes this clash what it is, is the fact that both of these up and coming communities are after the same piece of land. The lengths that both sides went to in order obtain they believed was theirs has shaped the current relationship between the two nations today.
Since the Arabs were living in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire control it. Since the Arabs defeated the Ottoman Empire with the help of from Germany, “Just short of 6 months the Palestinians were crushed, militarily and psychologically” (document 8) On the other hand, Israel grew beyond the partition lines, gained more defensible borders and they destroyed Arab homes reducing their population. The Palestinians rightly felt that the Israelis were taking over the area and were pushing out of lands promised to them in both the Balfour Declaration and the UN 1947 Partition.
“Palestinians do not control their own fate but instead live under the power of other states” (82, Yambert). The one state that directly controls the fate of Palestinians in the occupied territories is Israel and for the Palestinians who do not reside in Israel, other governments control them. The history of Palestine and how Israel came into existence is essential to understand in order to break down the present day conflict. The most dominant and important player in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict has been the United States of America, which has completely shaped the predicament in order to fulfill its interests. Before delving into the role of the United States, it is essential to go back in time and familiarize with the history of Palestine and Israel.
After the Six Day War Israel security forces were attempting to cultivate and expand islamism. In between the years 1967 and 1987 the number of mosques in Gaza went from 200 to 600. While islamism was expanding at this time so were the other smaller nationalist terrorist groups, such as the PLO, were also expanding in the streets, and in schools. Hamas was founded in 1978, during the expansion of islamism and terrorist nationalist groups, by Ahmed Yassin as a Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The real terrorist acts from this group started happening around the 1990’s ...
...ng violated and it must terminate. From this paper, it is clear to see that discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is harmfully justified by Jewish Zionism, the Intifada is not a meaningless attack on the Jews, however, Arabs are quite hypocritical by reciprocating violence, and that the future may or may not hold peace in divided Israel because it, more or less, depends on Arab-Israeli compromises. As it is known, these compromises always tend to include conflicting agendas. Peace, surely, can be reached. It is merely decision regarding which side will initiate and negotiate first. Taking a look at peace talks today, this does not appear to be happening in the near future. It is amazing to bear witness to the incredible amount of violence and hate in a so-called “Holy Land.”