Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
religious conflict and war
israel and palestine conflict history
conflict between palestine and israel
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: religious conflict and war
The Conflicting Views of David and Daud
The two views of these to two men, David and Daud expressed different beliefs. One (David), is a Jewish Israeli. The other man, Daud, is a very upset Palestinian Arab. Throughout the discussion they both are bringing up each of the countries faults and seeing if any of these points can maybe be resolved. It seems however as though, for right now they failed. I personally have to side with the Israeli man David. His point is very clear for me to see and it seems that all the Jewish people are there to help each other and to have their own place to call home.
In the beginning, they bring up the religious factor. Daud is upset that the Israelis came and took part of the land. However, some Jews had been there all along possibly waiting for the others to come home. Palestine was the Jews Promised Land. This is the reason that the Jews choose no other place to worship and live other then Palestine and that's why it is so important for them to gain some of that back.
Another subject that was brought up was the land raised and worked by the Palestinian Arabs. Yes, the Arabs had put lots of work into the land to see it being turned over to enemies would be very upsetting. Yet as told by David, some of that land wasn't even touched. Some swamps and deserts have been made into fields and many things of that sort. The other parts of land that was being occupied or owned by Arabs which they bought. Some parts of land they bought were extremely expensive. Daud had then brought up the Western countries and what role they played in this fiasco. The Western countries were to have said of feeling guilty since so many Jews were persecuted. Daud also said that this is how the Jews got their land was because the Western had such great influence on the United Nations decision of giving them land. This could all be very true, but as David put it, they had just want to go to their Holy Land Palestine.
The last reason I sided with Israelis is the way they dealt with the many refugees. The Israelis took Jews from all over the world and invited them into Israel for a home.
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.
...r remains faithful to the memory of his peaceful childhood when Jews and Palestinians lived together in peace, and the prospect of a better future. Despite the political wrongs his people have suffered, he is proud of his heritage and intends to “restore race relations between Jews and Palestinians, (by restoring) human dignity” (146). To do this, Chocour implements innovative techniques: he has Palestinians visit the Kibbutzim, and has Jews spend time with Palestinian families. Chocour’s message is quite honorable, “to change hearts not institutions” (222). Chocour remembers that “Jews and Palestinians are brothers, the(y) have the same father, Abraham, and believe in the same God” (34). It is sad that peoples in this region need to be remnded that they are brothers, but it is comforting that there are men like Chocour, who valiantly assume this task as their own.
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.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for a partition resolution that led to the establishment of the nation of Israel in May, 1948. This was great news for Jews in Palestine and the diaspora as it meant the fulfillment of the quest for the rebirth of their nation in their previous homeland after many years of wandering (Pappe, 2006, p. 12). However, their Palestinian Arab counterparts opposed to the establishment from the start felt cheated by the international community and remained categorical that the final answer to the Jewish problem would only be solved in blood and fire (Karsh, 2002, p. 8).
Humans are no strangers to war. They have fought for freedom. They’ve fought for land. They have fought for resources. Israel became a country in 1948 with the help of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They thought process behind creating the Nation of Israel was the fact that it was the original Jewish homeland. The Jewish people were desperate for a country to call their own because of the Third Reich. Germany, under the reign of Hitler, had destroyed many homes and relocated Jewish families. Arabs became upset because they had lived there for many generations. Samuel Hazo, in “For Fawzi in Jerusalem,” writes about a narrator having a conversation between the narrator who is obviously an educated and someone who is part of the middle or high class and an Arab shoe shiner named Fawzi. The narrator is most likely Jewish. Samuel Hazo was greatly influenced by the Arab and Israeli War of 1948 and believes that the resentment because of losing their land is justified.
Herzel and other zionist were actively seeking jewish states in Uganda and other places around the world but ended up choosing Palestine for it’s biblical history. He also claims that there was and always had been a major jewish presence in and around Palestine. This “fact” is also incredibly debateable and dershowitz said himself, census data and documents from before the era were poor and sometimes forged. The modern Muslims, had control of the ldn for close to 1200 years. Although you can claim that Jews were there first, there were many tribes living in Palestine when abraham arrived and after the 400 year enslavement in Egypt. If we have a right to the land before we lived there before, don't the Muslims who previously lived their and their tribal ancestors also have some claim to the land. Arguments like “the arabs tended to leave and not return, while the Jews were more stable.” (pg. 26) are one sided and biased because jews did leave and there were large periods of time were there was a complete absence of Jews completely. Dershowitz, on a number of occasions, attempted to draw a parallel between the Pilgrims and the Jews, both groups that faced religious persecution. He fails to mention that the pilgrims brutally slaughtered the indigenous people
The dispute over the territory called Palestine began relatively recently. Palestinian Arabs had lived as impoverished peasants under corrupt, continuous Ottoman rule for centuries ; political identification as a Palestinian within the broad current of Arab nationalism only...
Most if not all Israelis believe the land of Israel should be under their control. The first reason being that after WWII the British had decided that Israel would be the national home and
The dispute as to which nation should claim ownership of the city of Jerusalem has been one of the major issues causing the conflict. The Israelis view Jerusalem as part of their historic homeland. It is somewhat a religious city to them owing to the Abraham religions- Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Sela 2002). However Palestinians already claim parts of the city which were not under Israeli jurisdiction. This being the cases, Pales...
Summing up the whole book, it can be said that is a tale of a journey from a perpetrator to bystander and from victim to up stander. This piece of writing describes and even teaches the readers various lessons regarding what they are not aware of within the historical events and the historical backgrounds. Many a times what you hear or see is quite different from reality and developing of a conclusion merely on the basis of the stance that others portray is not wise at all. The journey undergone by the author helps in the gaining of answers of various unanswered questions which reside in the minds of the readers throughout the world. Eventually the author has become a critic of the Israeli occupation as well as a supporter of the Palestine
... I believe that Israel must abide by international law, and should be stopped when these laws are violated. I believe that the Palestinians must be given their rights. I fully understand that Israel is extremely concerned about it’s safety as it is mostly surround by enemy’s however I do not believe that the oppression and ultimate control of the Palestinians will bring this safety they long for, but do the very opposite instead.
Corruption, violence, and ever growing frustration all are words to describe the, seemingly, endless conflict between Israelis, who consist mainly of Jews, and Palestinian Arabs, otherwise known as Muslims. The people that are truly entitled to this holy land have biblical proof, have already displayed their capabilities, and uphold non-violent and peaceful morals. The people entitled to this land are the Israelis. The Arabs continually claim that the bible is full of lies and hoax, yet the Torah, the Jewish holy text, and the Bible share similar aspect.
This all seems very diplomatic, but the first thing that struck me was that Israel had roughly three reasons put forward, as opposed to the Arabs two. The writer says that “it comes down to whether…” in the first paragraph, implying that you should draw your own opinion from the information that he has put forward in his book. I believe that he is trying to sway your opinion to the side of the Israelis by means of clever wording.
After reading the documents provided, I have come to the conclusion that the territory now called Israel and once called Palestine, really should belong to the native Palestinians. As a part of the larger international conflict between the Jews and the Arabs, the Palestinian current living situations has been the “fuse” that ignites regional conflict. The Palestinian refugee status has become an exceptional contribution to the conflict resulting in more violence in recent years. The conflict itself is rooted on the primary question of whether or not the Palestinian people should be allowed to form their own Independent country and government in an area that is currently part of the nation of Israel. The territory in question has changed hands