In 2005, the Israeli government decided to give up the Gaza Strip, including Gush Katif, in an effort to bring peace to the middle east. They did not take into consideration much of the consequences of their actions. The attempt to create peace by giving Gush Katif to the Palestinians not only did not have that effect, but the exact opposite effect, creating more violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as a lack of trust between the government and some of the Israeli people.
Gush Katif is a village in the Middle East that is a part of the Gaza Strip. In 2005, it was given to the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Gush Katif was home to 1,800 religious Jewish families, 8,500 people, from both traditional and secular ways of life, diverse ethic groups, and were immigrants as well as born Israelis. Yitzhak Segev, the active governor of Gaza in 1979, said about Gush Katif, “The residents were like one family and that is what kept them strong in the difficult times.”
The village and its people were famous for their work in agriculture. There were about 350 family agricultural enterprises in Gush Katif, whose produce represented about ten percent of all produce grown in Israel, sixty five percent of Israel’s organic produce, ninety percent of Israel’s bug-free leafy vegetables, forty-five percent of tomato exports, ninety-five percent of Israel’s cherry tomato exports, and sixty percent of Israel’s herbs. Sixty percent of Israel’s geranium came from Ganei Tal in Gush Katif. Gush Katif’s hot houses alone, cover an estimated 900-1,000 acres and are estimated to be worth over $80 million.
In 1917, the British captured. In 1948, the the Egyptian Military took over. Israel had nothing to do with Gaza. In 1956,...
... middle of paper ...
...the government will once again make the mistake that they made with Gush Katif and evacuate more families from their homes, some of whom moved there after the expulsion from Gush Katif. The government claims that they agree that giving up the West Bank will not create peace, but they are in a position where they don't have a choice because they have to cooperate with the United States, the providers of financial support to the Israeli Defense Forces.
Although the government did not feel they had a choice in giving away Gush Katif, they still suffered, and continue to suffer severe consequences. This decision brought multiple attacks to the Israelis and caused tension between the Knesset and the people. Clearly, the idea to bring peace to the Middle East by giving over Gush Katif, was a futile effort, and had the opposite effect of the goal it was meant to achieve.
“Palestinians do not control their own fate but instead live under the power of other states” (82, Yambert). The one state that directly controls the fate of Palestinians in the occupied territories is Israel and for the Palestinians who do not reside in Israel, other governments control them. The history of Palestine and how Israel came into existence is essential to understand in order to break down the present day conflict. The most dominant and important player in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict has been the United States of America, which has completely shaped the predicament in order to fulfill its interests. Before delving into the role of the United States, it is essential to go back in time and familiarize with the history of Palestine and Israel.
...d they will receive, whether if it is good land or bad land. An issue that the Parameter failed to resolve is the “right of return” issue. The Parameter states that Palestinians would have to waive their claim to an unlimited “right of return” to Israel Proper. This issue regarding the “right of return” was one of the main reasons why the Camp David 2000 Summit negotiation failed, and since this Parameters still hasn’t found a solution to this issue, it was bound to fail. Another issue the Parameters failed to find a solution is the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. As lenient as how Israel was in the Camp David Summit, they were strong on an issue; this issue was the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Israel wants full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, since this Parameter would give the Palestinian sovereignty, the Israel would have to reject this Parameter.
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.
Israel has been dealing with Palestinian pressures to give back the land that they consider “theirs” and other leaders have had different views on how to handle aggression from the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert’s views included handling the conflict with peace and not using violence. He suggested to Mohamed Abbas a convergence plan which centered around the idea that the Israeli people would be forced out of the West Bank which is an are...
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...
The ongoing and explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its roots in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when two major nationalist movements among the Jews and Arabs were born. Both of these groups’ movements were geared toward attaining sovereignty for their people in the Middle East, where they each had historical and religious ties to the land that lies between the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Toward the end of the 19th century, Southern Syria (Palestine) was divided into two regions, inhabited primarily by Arab Muslims, and ruled by the Turkish Ottoman Empire (BBC News). At this time, most of the Jews worldwide lived predominantly in eastern and central Europe. When the Zionist political movement was established in 1887 and began to fund land purchases in the Ottoman Empire controlled region of Palestine, tensions between the two groups arose. Since then, Israel and Palestine have been vying for control of this land that they both covet, and this conflict remains as one of the world’s major sources of instability today, involving many different players. One of these players who continues to halt the peace process, is a militant fundamentalist Islamic organization called Hamas. Hamas has intensified extreme opposition and bloodshed in the region, with the aim of destroying the state of Israel. However, few people know that starting in the mid 1970s, Israel secretly supported an organization that would later emerge as Hamas, even though both groups had competing future visions for the nation. Why did it choose to do this when it had so much at stake? This paper will address the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict leading up to the beginning of Israeli support of Hama...
Though the First Intifada brought much death, destruction and economic loss to both Palestine and to Israel, it also brought worldwide attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The First Intifada provided not only the Palestinians a voice and ultimately a platform to stand up for their Nationalism; it also provided Israel a stage to show its strength. The Oslo Peace Accords, through interim in nature, would set a precedent that Palestine should be recognized as its own Nation-State. Nevertheless, following the First Intifada, the dialogue between Israel and Palestine continued to be strained, and in fact would further deepen the Israeli-Arab discord.
On the 28th of September, of the year 2000, the second Palestinian Intifada took place. The main reason that sparked this Intifada was the provocative visit of Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli Prime Minister, to the Haram Al Sharif. Even though the visit was what set the ground on fire, these feeling of hatred and desire to rebel had been stirring inside the Palestinians ever since the declaration of the Israeli State, on the Palestinian land, back in 1948. This Palestinian frustration is due to their lack of trust and hope in a peace process that did not yield meaningful results. After seven years of peace talks and six agreements, Palestinians realized that Israel is not serious about peace. Since 1993, Israel has doubled settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, continued to imprison Palestinian prisoners and has implemented only 8 percent of what it agreed to implement in all the signed agreements.
...to relinquish any of the land it still considered their rightful property and could not compromise this in peace talks. It was ultimately because of this failure in diplomacy that Britain withdrew from Palestine and ended Jewish immigration for a time in 1939.
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 Palestine and Israel conflict has been carrying on for the better part of the last century. This is a conflict that seemingly has no end in sight. Multiple wars between Palestine and Israel have only complicated things for the inhabitants of the land they are fighting over. Due to the second war in 1967, Israel is now in control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This is particularly important to the conflict and how the dialectical perspective plays a part of it because these are two areas that many Palestinians call home, leaving them under Israel rule.
For many years now, Israel and Palestine have faced many conflicting issues. The result is war, death, and bloodshed. Those who are stuck in between may feel hopeless about the future of Palestine and Israel. Since 1948 (History Guy), Israelis and Palestinians have been in conflicting arguments with one another which in turn causes even more hopelessness and despair for the people of not just Israel, but the rest of the world. Many hope there will be a peaceful future for both Israel and Palestine, but others, including myself, feel hopeless.
“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.
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
In September 2015, Palestinian President Muhammad Abbas proclaimed that the state of Palestine was no longer under any obligation to follow the Oslo Accords crafted over two decades prior. Citing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Abbas argued that Palestine had been the only side upholding the terms of the once-heralded agreement, and that they were tired of being exploited as a “state under occupation.” How could the state have gotten here from the wide-spread optimism following the Oslo Accords ? The answer lays in both what the accords did and didn’t state, as well as the general opposition amongst Israelis towards the agreement. Overall, the Oslo Accords were, in a sense, doomed from the start, and created more in hope of an easy fix