A nations’ partition has stood as one of the century’s most inglorious episodes of communal acrimony. The ubiquity of civil conflict owing to post-colonial social and political instabilities drove two particular nations to desire a partition. With the anticipated release from Britain’s clutch, Palestine and India had the insidious problem of communal aggression that manifested as each nation housed two separate cultures. Within Palestine, the nation was divided among the Jewish people and the Arab people; while Palestine was segregated with its Hindu and Muslim population. Britain’s inevitable need to decolonize arose the opportunity for a partition as a viable identity solution to the enmity constructed within Palestine and India to alleviate the religious, territorial, and political bellicosity occurring.
Self-rule was finally within reach for the two nations to give them the opportunity to fulfill their desires of a partition. As colonizers, the British operated on a divide-and-rule policy in that a divided population was not capable to fight against the sovereign authority. In the Indian census, the British categorized people according to their religion and treated them as separate from each other to the extent that upon the formation of the Muslim League, the two religions were placed on separate electorates. Leader of the Muslim League, Muhammad Jinnah, acknowledged the Muslims as a “hopeless minority” and that “an united India means slavery for Mussulmans and complete domination [by] the imperialistic caste Hinduraj.” Thus, he called upon divided boarders to ensure the Muslim people could be free from persecution and be able to establish a national identity. Similarly, Britain played the divine right of kings in further ...
... middle of paper ...
...groups had different ideologies to the other and this constant conflict to gain representation only produced violence. They are different and distinct societies that belong to “two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures.” The Hindus resented the Muslims for their former rule over India and constantly tried to prove their authority in the nation. From a protest to ban the butchery of cows, a cheap source of meat for the Muslims, to wanting to change the national language to Hindu, the Hindus wanted to show India was only their home. In 1947, India gained independence from colonial rule, and Pakistan was born to give the Muslim people their own identity. However, the Palestine clash continues today, as neither side can part with valuable land, particularly the holy site of Jerusalem, the gain true self-rule even after Britain has long left.
Thousands of years ago, Indian society developed into a complex system based on different classes. This system was known as the Caste System. It separated Indians into different castes based on what class were born into. As thousands of years went by, this system grew larger and became further complex (Wadley 189). This system caused frustration for the Indian citizens because they were receiving inequality. Not only did the inequality and separation of the Indian society frustrate the citizens of India, but the imperialism Britain had upon them as well. In the early 20th century, Indian nationalists wanted to take a stand against the British rule and make India independent. The British created unfair laws that created a nationalist movement
The Nation of Israel was founded out of the eastern area of a British occupied (former Ottoman Empire) section of western Asia known as the “Mandate of Palestine”. There was an attempt in November of 1947 by the United Nations (UN) to partition the region into Arab and Israeli states with the Holy City Jerusalem as an international city. (United Nations, 1949) The Jews accepted this proposal while the Arab League and other groups did not. (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006). What followed was an Arab strike that became violent and sent the Jews on the defensive. They rebounded and brought the civil war to an end, expelling over 250,000 Arabs. The day before the British mandate was set to expire; the region was invaded by four Arab States starting the yearlong 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Ultimately a cease fire and truce was reached with the establishment of bo...
On the streets of Jerusalem, in the rubble of Ramallah, in synagogues, in mosques, in the hearts and minds of millions in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the remainder of Israel, Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a clash of civilizations. In his masterful work, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel L. Huntington outlines a theory which approaches international politics on the scale of civilizations. However, he circumvents discussion about Israel. Huntington cautiously describes Israel as a “non-Western” (Huntington 90) country, but identifies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as one along a fault line between civilizations (267). Though he chooses to avoid the issue, Huntington’s theory provides a groundwork for analyzing the conflict in Israel in terms of a clash of civilizations between Judaism and Islam. This is a dangerous and provocative idea. But if we dare examine its implications and explore its insights, we risk a more complete understanding of the conflict which has plagued relations between Palestinians and Israelis in particular, Muslim countries and Israel in general, for over fifty years.
“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.
New York: St. Martin's, 1998. Print. The. Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.
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.
Conflicts between people often have multiple causes and effects. A majority of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an argument that dates back to Biblical times. The Jewish argue Palestine was the historical site of all Jewish kingdoms, which was promised to Abraham and his descendants. The Arabs argue that Ishmael, forefather of Arabs, is the son of Abraham so God’s promise that the land should go to Abraham’s descendents includes Arabs as well . Some of the main causes which worsen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the disparity between Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration, The United Nation Partition plan of 1947, which was the separation of the boundaries, and Hitler’s Final Solution. While these causes affected both sides
After World War II the British gave Palestine to the United Nations, in 1947 the UN resolved to “partition the country into two states. Roughly 57% of Palestine would become a Jewish state while 43% was to be a Palestinian Arab state.” The Palestinians rejected the plan in support that the Arab league declared the partition illegal. There was a lot of violence in Palestine during this time...
For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.
The most threatening conflict between Hindus and Muslims is the province of Kashmir. This is where the decision to divide India into India and Pakistan seems to have been a terrible mistake. Kashmir, which is the only Muslim majority city in India, lies between the divided India and Pakistan. After India’s independence in the 1940’s, Kashmir had to choose to either unite with India or Pakistan. The Prince of Kashmir chose India but Pakistan invaded the province soon after and have occupied part of Kashmir since then. Controversy still surrounds the province today because naturally, Muslims want to control it. While many Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus to India, half of the Muslim population was left in India and their relations did not improve after being partially separated.
A conflict between Palestine and Israel began when a promise was made by Britain in 1917 to make Palestine Israel’s homeland, and their belief that the land was meant for them since biblical times. Despite their beliefs and Britain’s promise, it still does not give them the right to drive Palestinians out of their homes. They should negotiate and come up with a peaceful agreement instead of causing conflict and violence. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians still exists today, they have yet to find a way to resolve their conflict and live together in peace once again.
This testifies that Jews Arab prefers to return to the Arab world as a minority, because of the good treatment that Arabs give them when used to lived in Arabs world . However, The Unite Nation divided Palestine cause many of conflict and instability in the Arab region which leds of many Arab to become angry and fierce as a result of this partition of Palestine between Arabs and Jews.
“India and Pakistan: Tense Neighbours.” BBC. N.p., 16 Dec. 2001. Web. 15 May 2011. .
...tween the Hindus and Muslims, Jinnah felt that Muslims had no future in India (Overfield 216). With the end of British rule in 1947, not only did India gain its independence but also along with it was born an other country, Pakistan where Jinnah served as the first governor (Overfield 216). With the gain of India’s independence, Gandhi was shot the following year in 1948 by a Hindu zealot who resented his commitment to Hindu – Muslim harmony (Overfield 212).
We can start by recounting history, where the roots of the conflict lie. India was one massive nation made up of several states, ruled by the British. A long and difficult independence struggle culminated with the British choosing to leave India in August 1947. The Muslims of the land decided that instead of just a Free India, they would create a Free Pakistan for themselves as well. They were fearful that as a minority, the Hindu majority would trample their rights and religion. Both countries would be formed as soon as the British handed back control in August. The rulers of each individual state constituting India would chose which country to join, hopefully following the wishes of its people. This idea was fraught with problems. There were quite a few states that had a majority of one religion yet the ruler belonged to another faith. The states of Hyderabad and Junagarh were examples of this. Both had Hindu majorities and M...