The partition plan for Palestine that was adopted by the UN in 1947 was disastrous; rather than solving the conflict, it exacerbated the problem. This partition plan created a massive refugee crisis, the loss of Palestinian Arab identity, ongoing war between Israel and the Arab states, and tremendous political instability in the Middle East. Essentially, the partition plan should have never been enacted. Instead, a plan which joined both sides in a common goal and allowed all parties to maintain political power should have been implemented. A modified version of the 1947 proposal for a federal solution would have decreased the future violence in the conflict because it would have balanced the power dynamics by giving both Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish …show more content…
The minority plan that was proposed in 1947 suggested the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state, and an overall federal government in charge of “‘national defense, foreign relations, and immigration’” (Ginat 204). In a modified version of this plan, there would be multiple states for each group in order to ensure that the power would not culminate in only one state, or with only one group. The federal system of government would guarantee local autonomy for the states, so that their respective populations could have political power over their own lives with regards to domestic affairs. Foreign policy and national defense should be shared between the Jews and the Arabs, so then the groups would have a common goal. Although there would likely be some internal conflict, the extent of the fighting would not reach that of a partition because the people would want their shared government to prosper. Additionally, in order to create stability, the government would not encourage conflict or war against the Arab nations, because it itself would be partially
On November 29th, 1947, the United Nations passed Resolution 181 in favour of the partition of Palestine for the creation of an Israeli state. This resolution laid down a plan for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state linked by mutual economies. Jerusalem, located in the heart of the country, was to be an international regime. This resolution was shortly passed after World War II, with the events of this war helping to strengthen the mindset and determination of the Jewish people fighting for their homeland and was in a way, pivotal to the movement. However, plans for a independent Jewish state was already in talks before World War II had even began.
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
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...
The time that Palestine was being controlled by the British, they were full of empty promises. In November of 1917, the Balfour Declaration was the start of those half-hearted promises. The Declaration called for Palestine to be the Jewish homeland. This seemed to be a lofty declaration by the Brits since Palestine was still technically Ottoman. As a result, revolts started to erupted between both the Palestinians and the Zionists. The British was able to quell the revolts, nonetheless they felt it as if this was becoming too much of a chore to rule over the Palestinians, so passed the issue over to the United Nations, which came up with the UN Partition Plan in 1947. This plan called for both Israel and Palestine to each take ownership of land whose masses would amount to be of equal size. However, the borders posed a major problem as the landscape of the borders created somewhat of a confusing puzzle. This resolution did not last long as the tensions boiled over to what became known as the Arab-Israel War. Shortly after the Israelis won an armistice was signed giving Israel a third more land than what was given in the United Nations Partition. Years later, the Israelis and other Arabs went to war which later became the Six-Day War. After the Israeli victory, they obtained
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).
One of the most complex issues of our times is the Arab–Israeli conflict. In this assessment, I will examine how Britain’s conflicting promises made to the opposing parties contributed to the Arab-Israeli War. I will examine this through an analysis of several primary sources originating from the period prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. These documents of historical meetings and promises such as the Balfour aration, the McMahon letters, and the White Papers of 1939 give us insight on how Britain’s contradictory promises led to conflict.
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.
Before we move on to discussing the cause of peace talks’ failures, it is crucial that we understand the peace initiatives that had occurred between Israel and Palestine. The starting point for the peace talks was UN’s Security Council Resolution 1967 which occurred after the 1967 war (Reynolds). This resolution stressed on “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “. . . respect for and acknowledgment . . . of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and re...
In this paper, I will discuss why the Palestinians should be able to govern their own state alongside the state of Israel. I will also discuss why Palestine should not have their own state, as well as why the one-state solution would be the right way to solve the solution.
...inian territories into different sections. By doing this, Israel was able to politically support the two-state solution, but in fact the result was that it prevented Palestinian unification by reducing their strength.
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...
This destroyed the way of life for many Palestinians. So, they rejected the idea. Then, several Arab states attacked the newly created Israel. Israeli forces then basically wiped over four hundred Palestinian villages and cities off the face of the earth, and to make matters more intense, when the Palestinians tried to return to their homes, they found that Israel had not only taken them over, but had barred the Palestinians from entering what had once been their homes. Those that had not left became second class citizens, and soon, the numbers of Palestinian refugees numbered in the millions. Most of the refugees went to, and still are in, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, or
The United Nations (UN) Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947 not only divided the region geographically, but also the opinion of the international community. The end of the First World War saw the acquisition of Palestine by the British and later the separation of the region into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish. In the years following, the territory has been ardently contested and continues to draw international attention due to ongoing tension. It will be argued that the support for the Partition Plan by the United States was substantially driven by domestic politics. The following issues will be examined in order to see how domestic politics influenced and was intertwined with foreign policy: the extensive Jewish lobbying
The most significant number of Palestinians immigrants came to the United States in the years of 1800 and 1920. They left Palestine for many reasons. Most of them came to seek better job opportunities. Their culture background and experience makes the Arab ethnic group very different. Most early Arab immigrants around the late 19th century were from Lebanon, and Syria and were mostly Christian. Most Arabs left for different reasons. Some listened to Arab leaders’ call to get out of the way of the advancing armies, many were expelled, yet most of them fled so they would not be caught in the middle of the war and many left because of the war.”Had Arabs accepted the 1947 United Nations resolution not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would exist besides ...
“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.