The Oslo Peace Accords were an agreement signed by the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat and the Government of Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The agreements goal was to create a path towards peace and stability in the between the Palestinians and the Israel’s living in the area surrounding Israel. Despite the agreement’s noble goal the vision fell short and ended with Palestine*(getting shafted?.) This was caused by of Arafat’s weakened political position that allowed Rabin to get a strong political deal that allowed Israel to benefit from the Oslo Peace Accords and their implantation, this imbalance was then heightened with the election of Netanyahu as the President of Israel. …show more content…
First starting with the mutual recognition as political entities and through the interim period build trust and inter reliance needed for administrative and security arrangements. The hope was that through this process Israel and Palestine could build the momentum to tackle the more sensitive issues, referred to as “final status issues.” Among these difficult and complex issues were the borders and status of a Palestinian State, the claims and repatriation of Palestinian refugees, the fate of the Jewish settlements, and the disposition of East Jerusalem. While it may seem counter intuitive the Oslo Peace Accords did not actually address any of these issues. This was due to its purpose as a way to build the political framework that would allow for later negotiations and not as a permeant peace solution for the region. By understanding what each group wanted out of the Oslo Peace Accords one can begin to see why it favoured Israel. The Oslo Peace Accords managed to satisfy all of Israel’s demand; recognition, refusal of terrorism, and suspended calls for destruction. The agreement was “so close to Israel’s preferred solution that it would have made no sense to risk seeking a better deal with the local Palestinians” By comparing this to the effect it had on the PLO in Palestine we get a clear picture of why Israel benefited more from the Peace
A Separate Peace, written by John Knowles is a flashback of the main character, Gene Forrester’s schooling at the Devon School in New England. During this flashback Gene remembers his best friend Finny, who was really athletic and outgoing. Gene and Finny’s friendship was a relationship of jealousy. Gene was jealous of Finny’s talent in athletics, and Finny was envious of Gene’s talent in school. In the end, Gene’s jealousy of Finny takes over and causes him to shake the tree branch that makes Finny fall and break his leg. The break was bad, but it was not until Finny fell down the stairs and broke his leg again, that he had to have surgery. The surgery that Finny would undergo would cause more complications and heartbreaking news for Gene. During the surgery Finny would lose his life due to some bone marrow that escaped into his blood stream and stopped his heart from beating. “As I was moving the bone some of the marrow must have escaped into his blood stream and gone directly to his heart and stopped it” (Knowles 193). Although people do not normally think about bone marrow as being a huge part of the human body, it can cause some major issues if it has to be replaced or escapes into the blood stream.
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.
Rabin must have been assassinated because of the jealousy/revenge of individuals who did not agree with the success Rabin had. This paper argued that Rabin was assassinated because of jealousy/revenge. The findings of this paper were that Amir, the assassin, assassinated Rabin because of the signing of the Oslo Accord. Amir did not believe in the signing of this treaty and felt the need to take matters into his own hand. Amir himself stated to the judge in court that the murder of Rabin was meant to halt the Mideast peace process. There has been sufficient evidence supporting the reasoning’s behind the murder/assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin was a man who strongly believed in his country and a man who strongly believed he could get Israel and the Palestinians to a place of peace. Rabin almost succeeded, but unfortunately, his push for peace came to an abrupt end on that tragic
“The more sure I am that I 'm right, the more likely I will actually be mistaken. My need to be right makes it more likely that I will be wrong! Likewise, the more sure I am that I am mistreated, the more likely I am to miss ways that I am mistreating others myself. My need for justification obscures the truth." This sentence is one of many quotes from the book I really liked and agreed with. After reading The Anatomy of Peace, I realized that the Arbinger Institute was deeply insightful helping me to understand the reality and myself. I also realized that the moment I start to agree with this statement, I walked out of my box.
Bob Hawke once said; “Unless and until something concrete is done about addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue you won't get a real start on the war against terrorism.” Perhaps Hawke put into a few simple words one of the most complicated issues within our world today, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Israel continues to strip the Palestinians of their land and fears it’s very existence because of the Palestinians terrorist acts, there seems to be no solution in sight. The world appears to be split and all over the place when it comes to this matter. According to The Middle East Institute for Understanding approximately 129 countries recognize Palestine as a state while many others do not. Over all the political matters within this issue not only affect Palestine and Israel but the world as a whole, as the Middle East and the West seem to disagree. This has had and will continue to have an enormous impact on many political affairs all over the world particularly in the current fight against terrorism. Personally I feel that the Israeli Palestinian conflict while being a very complicated matter has a simple solution. Within this issue I am a firm believer that the occupation of the West Bank by Israeli forces is extremely unjust and must come to an end. Once this is achieved a two state solution will be the most effective way to bring peace to the area. The occupation of the West Bank violates political and legal rights, human rights, and illegally forces Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years from their land. This conflict is at the height of its importance and a solution is of dire need as nuclear issues arise in the Middle East due to the tension between Israel and it’s surrounding neighbors, and the...
In the novel, A Separate Peace by John Knowles, the protagonist, Gene Forrester “battled” within himself to find “a separate peace” and in this process directed his emotions at Phineas, his roommate. Forrester and Phineas formed the illusion of a great companionship, but there was a “silent rivalry” between them in Forrester’s mind. Self deceptions in Forrester led him to believe that Phineas was “out to get him” (Forrester). Subconsciously Forrester jounced the limb of the tree and forced Phineas to fall and break his leg. Phineas found out the truth of his “accident” with the help of Leper Lepellier and Brinker Hadley, who were friends that attended Devon High School. Gene Forrester’s conflict between his resentment of and loyalty toward Phineas’ personality and athletic abilities was resolved by the death of Phineas.
Disagreement on the “right of return” was one of the many reasons why the negotiation failed at the Camp David 2000 Summit. This disagreement correlates to the one above, due to Arafat’s all or nothing mindset; it transformed this easily negotiable agreement into one that would derange the negotiation. Palestinian insisted on the “right of return” of all scattered Palestinians to return to their old homes in Israel Proper. Israel would turn down this demand; Israel in there proposal, a maximum of 100,000 refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, however, at that ti...
Throughout the early 1950’s the Korean Peninsula was a location with much civil unrest and violence. For this reason, it is a miracle that the Korean Armistice Agreement was actually mutually agreed upon by North and South Korea. Even with the constant complications, and early opposition surrounding the Korean Armistice Agreement, the aid of Dwight D Eisenhower made this unrealistic attempt of peace a reality.
“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.
Considering that the Palestinians and Israelis both had Jews in their populous it is hard to understand why they did not seek to coincide and pursue a more practical unified state. This would allow them to pool their resources together and resolve issues that neither community could do on their own. Nonetheless, this was not the case, as time goes on it appears that neither side is no longer seeking out peace as the resources required to attain it seemed too hard to acquire. After the negotiations seemed to be going nowhere, it became obvious that both sides just resorted to what they know best: violence. Most of the conflicts still rage on today. While both sides still make efforts in order to finally establish peace, they are constantly impeded by radicals inciting violence, destroying what little progress they made towards ever reaching an
Bourke, Dale Hanson. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Tough Questions, Direct Answers. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Brenda Shoshanna once stated, “All conflict we experience in the world, is a conflict within our own selves.” This quote recognizes how much conflict influences our everyday lives and personality. The wise words were especially true for Gene, the main character in A separate peace, who let his battles with other characters and the society of his time become his own internal battles. In John Knowles’s novel, A separate peace, all the types of conflict are shown through the main character Gene.
The Paris Peace Treaties and Right of Self Determination When conflict ended in 1919 a series of peace treaties were signed between the ally and axis powers. Woodrow Wilson's 14 points signified a clear move to restore the pre war geographical state of Europe, with slight reforms concerning the Alsace Lorraine regions and the Ottoman Empire. However the most a controversial issue in nearly all of the treaties was the question of territory. Self determination was banned outright in most of the axis countries thus worsening the economic effects of the treaties, as for many countries annexation would have eased the economic strain of reparations and war debt. But to what extent were the treaties based upon self-determination, as a historian I aim to investigate and judge the level of restriction concerning self-determination in the Paris peace treaties.
It has been almost a century since the first Paris Peace Conference was hold, but even until now, it is a popular yet also controversial event in the history of the world. The Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 involving more than 1,000 representatives from over 30 nations. The results of the Conference are five treaties regarding terms that, according to the Conference, shall prevent any upcoming conflicts among nations. Although World War II started only after 15 years, nonetheless, the treaties did function as a buffer between countries. Although many resolutions were discussed, the negotiation of the Conference revolves around four main topics, reparation from the previous war losses or limitations on the main Central Power, Germany, self-recognition, President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the annexation of land.
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.