Israel is the known Jewish state in the world. It is located on the East of the Mediterranean Sea. On the other hand, Palestinians are Arab populace that originated from the land that is currently under Israel control. The Palestinians want to occupy the land under the control of Israel, and as a result, they have named the land Palestine and are determined to establish a nation under this name in the same land. The conflict that has existed between Israel as a nation and the Palestinians organizations has been over what percentage of this land should be owned by either of the sides and how it needs to be controlled. Although Jews and Arabs Muslims trace their claim to the land back to many centuries ago, the fight had taken a more political theme in the 20 th century ( Spencer, 2010). According to the History of this conflict, the fight between the Palestinians and Israel begun when the Jews wanted to establish a national homeland in the land that was under the control of Arabs and Muslims. The Jews were fleeing persecution in Europe and were in need to find a home. The Arabs did not welcome the opinion ( Doulah & Shafee, 2016). To them, the land was rightfully theirs. It led to intervention from the United Nations. However, its urge to divide the land between these two groups failed, and this led to conflict. In this article, the Israeli-Palestinian war is analyzed with regards to its cause, the parties involved as well as the solution.
Overview
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a form of intrastate conflict. Intrastate conflict is the most common type of violence in the contemporary society. Intrastate conflict is a fight between one armed side representing a specific country with another group or groups of individuals that do not represent any country. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a typical representation of intrastate conflict. Israel army represents Israel as a nation and their urge to remain dominant in this region. On the other hand, the Palestinians are a group of immigrants from Europe whose primary aim is to occupy this land and make a stable nation out of it. As a result, their struggle has fueled a conflict. Other than representation aspect of the conflict, the region where the war is staged is similar to intrastate conflict stage ( Suleiman & Ebrary, Inc. 2011). Intrastate conflict usually is staged within the border of a specific country. A keen look at Israeli-Palestine war reveals that most of the conflict and attacks from either side is staged within the border of Israel and the land that has fueled the fight.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Israeli-Palestine war can further be explained using the Conflict escalation theory. According to this theory, conflict is fueled by numerous factors that can be conjugated into nine critical steps. The first step is taking a position. The Israelites took their stand and refused to allow Palestine's to establish a country in the land they rightfully owned. On the other hand, the Palestinians claimed that they have to make a nation in this land no matter what it cost. This led to the second stage of position polarization. The two sides establish their power and were less concerned about the dialogue that was proposed by the United Nations. Their interest further became general and shifted from settlement to some geographical benefits endowed in this land. The third stage of the model is action with no Talk ( Goff, Phil. 2012). In the war, the action was attacks and fights, as both sides were not willing to dialogue. This led to the fourth stage of the model that is deploying fighting antics. Each side has been using its war antics on each other. However, as stated in step five of this model, the entire face of this conflict changed as the conflict escalated. In this sense, Palestinians were more affected as most people lost their lives. Threats and limited blow strategies as listed as stage six and seven in this model was further witnessed in this war. In this conflict, innocent people lost their lives since no side till to date, is willing to compromise. Also, both sides do not view conflict resolution through negotiation as the best strategy to end the war, but perpetual conflict. The eighth step is to destroy the enemy. Indeed this has been the case of the Israeli-Palestinian war. Millions of Palestine and the Israelites have died in this war ( Fabian, K. 2002).
Conflict Analysis: The cause of the conflict
The cause of this conflict is complicated. The violence was caused by systematic factors, the proximate factors, and the triggering factors. In this section, the systematic cause of the Israel-Palestinian war is examined ( Gelvin, J. 2005). The systematic causes of this war are factors that influenced its motives, the interests, and actions over an extended period. The first systematic cause of this war was the interest from both sides to control the land they both claimed they owned. Historically, the fight was fueled by the struggle to own a land that Israelites considered theirs, while the Palestinians insisted that they have to establish a country in this land. However, the war has evolved and currently, has taken different themes including the geographical benefits that came with this land ( Faris, H. 2013). After the Holocaust and the World War II where six millions of Jews were killed, the Jews wanted to have their states. They were given Palestine even though the Arabs had already occupied part of this land. As a result, the Arabs and the neighboring countries felt it was unfair to have the state changed to a country. There were different attempts by the United Nations to bring the two sides together. However, their intervention failed, and violence erupted.
The second systematic cause was the interest by both sides to benefits from the geographical resources that came with the possession of this land. First, the climatic nature of Israel supports Agriculture and crop production activities. This is opposite of Palestinian Climate. As a result, the Palestinians must rely on different groups that provide food and paid jobs. Unfortunately, these are the same groups that are involved in the frequent attacks on civilians in the regions ( Bernard, A. 2012). As a result, the Palestinians are drugged into the war since they lack options for getting food for their families. Further, lack of resources by the Palestinians is further made worse by Israel’s policy system that chocks the Palestinian. The Israel government is continually building a settlement along the border of the green line and expanding its existing structure unnecessarily. As a result, the Palestinians are squeezed and are forced to live in proximity with each other. This creates a situation where chaos is inevitable.
The economic crisis is another cause of this violence. A good number of the Palestinians who live within the Green line are poor when compared to the Israelis and Palestinians living and working outside the green lines. “For people living in Israel, the GNP or Gross National Product on a per capita basis is $20,551.20. However, the GNP is only $558.14 in the Gaza strip and $754.40 in the west bank. Furthermore, while people living outside the green line can find work in white collar jobs or as business owners and other successful occupations, people living inside the line is forced to work at menial jobs at best." As a result, most of Palestine are forced to live in impoverished areas and thus, they lack alternative but to fight to have a better nation where they can be protected economically.
Key Mobilizers or Key Actors and their actions/intentions
The Israel-Palestinian war has different and significant players with different purposes. The first major party in this conflict is the United Nations Security Council. The body has called for a halt to the violence on several occasions. However, this is a stage which has also exposed the UN weaknesses since the body has not taken any significant actions towards stopping the violence. Different organizations including Arab envoy have called on the United Nation Security Council to flextheir strong arm to end Israel's attacks. However, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice has said that: "There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel." The UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon has also expressed his concern "the worrisome escalation of violence in southern Israel and Gaza and the need to prevent any further deterioration” ( Smith, 2001).
Another player is the United States of America. As usual, The United States has taken center stage in this war. The country has expressed its concerns and heaped the blame on Hamas for facilitating the outbreak of violence at Gaza. During the press release at Worthington on November 18 th , the former president who by then was in power claimed that they fully support Israel’s right to defend themselves against attacks from (Gaza Khamaisi, 2010). However, the president was quick to claim that serious solution is needed to halt the war. The president further claimed that it would be sad for more people to die yet the situation can be brought under control.
The last party is the Arab League. Arab league is under the leadership of the Secretary-General Nabil al-Arabi. The leader and his crew have fueled the war by backing Egypt's effort to establish a truce between Hamas and Israel. Further, the leader and his crew have condemned the aggressive approach adopted by Israel against the innocent Palestinians. Further, the leader has vowed to confront this aggression in case it proceed s ( Caplan, N., & Conflict resolution collection. 2010).
Solution
There are two solutions proposed to end this conflict. However, either of these seems less favorable to Palestinians. The first approach is a two-state solution. The solution aims at dividing the countries so that each country becomes independent. However, this has created uproar in the Middle East. The rationale for the uproar is an imbalance with regards to resources and the portion of the land that would be occupied by Israel. The second solution is a one-state solution that aims at merging the West Bank, Israel, and Gaza strip. However, the countries are not on good terms, and this is likely to fail ( Harms, et al., 2008).
The best solution, in this case, needs to put into consideration massacre and discrimination as well as wanton killing the Palestinians had to face in the hands of the Israelis. As a result, the solution is to divide equally the land between Israel and Palestinians. This would mean splitting the land in such a manner that its resources are equitably shared. This is the best way to repay the bloodshed that Palestinian citizens had to undergo in the hand of Israelis. It will grant the Palestinian the sovereignty they have longed and fight for all their lives ( Brynen, R. 2012).
In summary, the Israel-Palestinian war is far from over because the two states are still antagonizing and their leaders are less willing to compromise with each other. Based on the History, each of these countries claimed the ownership of the ill-fated land. This has resulted in numerous deaths, where Palestinians have suffered more. Though different solutions are proposed, the best solution would be to divide the land between the two states equally. This is the solution that would guarantee the Palestinians their sovereignty they have longed and fought for all their lives.
References
Bernard, A. (2012). Consuming Palestine: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Metropolitan Popular Culture. Journal for Cultural Research, 16 (2-3), 197-216.
Brynen, R. (2012). ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT-Israel, Jordan, and Palestine: The Two-State Imperative. The Middle East Journal, 66 (4), 734-735.
Caplan, N., & Conflict resolution collection. (2010). The Israel-Palestine conflict : Contested histories (Contesting the past).
Doulah, A., & Shafee, M. (2016). Review of Recommended Peaceful Projects and Contracts for Israeli-Palestine Conflict in Terms of International Rights. Journal of Politics and Law, 9 (6), 151.
Fabian, K. (2002). The Israeli-Palestine Conflict: How to Cut The Gordian Knot? India Quarterly, 58 (1), 39-56.
Faris, H. (2013). The failure of the two-state solution : The prospects of one state in the Israel-Palestine conflict (Library of modern Middle East studies ; 127).
Gelvin, J. (2005). The Israel-Palestine conflict : One hundred years of war .
Goff, Phil. (2012). The Israeli-Palestine dispute: Time for compromise. New Zealand International Review, 37 (5), 2-3.
Harms, G., Ferry, Todd M, & Ebrary, Inc. (2008). The Palestine-Israel conflict a basic introduction (2nd ed.). London ; Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pluto Press.
Khamaisi, R. (2010). The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Building the Future Palestine. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 51 (6), 716-732.
Smith, C. (2001). Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict (4th ed.).
Spencer, W. (2010). One state, two states: Resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. Choice, 47 (6), 1140.
Suleiman, C., & Ebrary, Inc. (2011). Language and identity in the Israel-Palestine conflict the politics of self-perception in the Middle East (Library of modern Middle East studies ; 15). London: I.B. Tauris.
