Noam Chomsky once said that "if everyone is so worried about stopping terrorism, the easiest way to stop it is by not participating in it." This quote seems to be the answer to a question most people ask, regarding the resolution to terror in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if there is a possibility for a climax. If this philosophy were to be applied onto the conflict, the world may finally see peace in a world terror that has been affecting governmental tensions of each nation involved. In The Attack by Yasmina Khadra, readers are able to catch a glimpse of this real-life horror affecting the lives of people in the Middle East. Khadra's exemplary suggestion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved peacefully is …show more content…
The journey Amin took to find the cause of his wife's ordeal brought him to speak to Adel, Yasser's son, which he explained that she blew herself up because she could not stand seeing her people being terrorized. "It's not my fault. It's not anybody's fault. I didn't want her to blow herself up, but she was determined. Even Imam Marwan was unable to dissuade her. She said she was a full-blooded Palestinian, and she didn't see why she should let others do what she ought to do herself" (Khadra 221). Though the issue of blowing herself up took a big toll on her friends and family, her situation falls into an even deeper spectrum. With her Palestinian blood fueling, Sihem decided to take the route of fighting for the cause. The cause the Israelites and Palestinians have been fighting since after the end of World War II. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is present through many circumstances, but among many of them, the most on-going motive by both sides is that they see …show more content…
Old Yehuda's house was destroyed when Wissam, Amin's family member, committed a suicide attack against an Israeli checkpoint. This put a huge toll on Faten, Old Yehuda's caregiver. She abruptly travels to Jenin and makes Amin follow her to understand her motives. A drone attack at a town's square kills him and many others during the visit to find Faten. "Something resembling a lightning bolt streaks across the sky and bursts like a giant flare in the middle of the roadway; the shock wave strikes me full force; the crowd whose frenzy held me captive disintegrates" (Khadra 254). This shocking moment placed readers in a position of sadness and confusion when they sink into their seats, trying to figure out what actually happened and why. Reading it over and over paints a clearer picture that Amin had just been killed in a drone attack, aimed towards Imam Marwan, an Israeli sermon leader. Violence and terrorism is something that puts fear into people's lives, but for the Israelites and Palestinians, they are not just fighting because they are afraid, they are fighting because each of them have their own particular views for containing a brighter future for their own people. The main problem in trying to fix this conflict is the fact that too many people, foreign to the cause, are trying to fix something that has no clear end
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
In this book, Friedman presents a coherent picture of forces in the Middle East that have led to the Israeli- Palestinian confrontation and to bin Laden and his group of terrorists. Friedman’s articles describe meetings, discussions, and arguments he had with people at all levels of society through out the Middle East. From his extensive travels and through dynamic interactions with the people he derived intense insights into how 9/11 came about, why, and what should be done about it.
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.
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...
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
Since the inception of an Israeli nation-state in 1948, violence and conflict has played a major role in Israel’s brief history. In the Sixty-One year’s Israel has been a recognized nation-state, they have fought in 6 interstate wars, 2 civil wars, and over 144 dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) with some display of military force against other states (Maoz 5). Israel has been involved in constant conflict throughout the past half century. Israel’s tension against other states within the Middle East has spurred vast economic, social, and political unity that has fostered a sense of nationalism and unity in Israel not seen in most other states. Over the next several pages I will try and dissect the reasons for why the nation state of Israel has been emerged in constant conflict and how this conflict has helped foster national unity and identity among the people of Israel.
Bourke, Dale Hanson. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Tough Questions, Direct Answers. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2013. N. pag. Print.
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
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
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.
Terrorism in the Middle East has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the attention of the world. These terrorist groups use murder, bombs, threats, and other violent acts to get their way politically. Hamas, the organization that has replaced Fatah as the representative of the Palestinians, is a leading sponsor of terrorism. The Hamas are the leading reason there is not peace in the middle east as they strongly embrace terrorism.
In early 1974, the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, invited the Palestinian Liberation Organization to attend the General Assembly gathering on November 13, 1974, and in doing so gave legitimacy to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a governing body. In Yasser Arafat’s speech to the General Assembly, he thanked the United Nations for recognizing his organization and its legitimacy. When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territory. The problem we confront is, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism and the international community should be able to come up with one. The major hurdle in defining is the states’ ideas of what terrorism is.
QUESTION ONE: Hannah Arendt argues for a crucial distinction between politics, which she takes to be the realm of speech, conversation and debate, and violence, which she suggests is ‘speechless’. Others we have studied this term propose something different – that politics and violence are inseparable, and that one invariably entails the other. With direct reference to at least one of that authors considered in Theories of Conflict and Violence, consider the relationship between politics and violence.
During the Second Chechen War, there were an estimated 50,000 casualties (Effective human rights work is the best weapon against terrorism). There are nonviolent ways of dealing with oppression, following Gandhi’s example, and even the Boston Tea Party, which brought about changes with little violence. This Chechen conflict has been on-going for over 200 years, and unfortunately terrorist leaders continue to think terrorism will advance their cause even after much time has passed (Dershowitz 166). More often than not, terrorism hurts people, the economy, and religion.