Each side of the Israeli-Palestine conflict has its version of the conflict telling some part in truth and leaving out others in their part that influenced the continued existence of a conflict. The conflict culminated from intercommunal violence in Compulsory Palestine between the Israelis and the Arabs from 1920 – a problem that was facilitated by the British whose objective was to divide and conquer to influence the region. The violence went full-blown in erupting into a civil war between 1947 and 1948. The conflict has continued to be a back and forth situation never-ending but morphing into additional attributes adding to the conflict, thus making the matter more complex in resolving. It is important to note that the conflict is not based on religious relegations by factions of society. The conflict was a result of land issues touching on settlement and the rule of the land (Pfeffer, 2014). Other issues like religion may have castigated the complexity of the conflict, but land reputation remains the root cause of the conflict.
The Palestinian always lament about how they are the victims and in a deep sense of suffering and dispossession. They state that they are paying for the sins committed by Europe against the Jews. Palestinian efficiently leave out the details of the wars they initiated, their ineffective leadership, the violence, and their constant refusal to take up opportunities for accommodations when good deals were put across the table (Kostiw et al., 2012). The Palestinians were the majority of the landowners before the Jews came back. The Jewish occupation of the land was based on land purchase and the increasing scope of an organization from the Israeli side. This is a factor that would likely lead to the Palestinians to feel threatened. The Palestinians reacted wrongly due to bad leadership to begin attacking Israelis that had purchased land and began becoming organized. After the 1947 to 1948 war, conflict continued and broke out to another war in 1967. The arrogant nature of Palestinian Arabs did not help with the situation. However, with impending agreements in the past, why would Israel capture the Gaza strip and the Western Bank an area which was originally occupied by the Palestinians has now become under Israel’s influence. The 1967 war meant that many Palestinians were displaced from their homes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Israel has its narrative towards the conflict. They acknowledge their long-time attachment to the land as from the Biblical era, the legitimacy to their belonging cemented by a UN partition plan as well as the hostilities they received from their neighbors when they tried to integrate into society. However, they leave out the atrocities they have committed to fomenting the conflict. The Israelis have also played a part in rationalizing and downgrading the cruelties and atrocities they have committed. To worsen the situation, they become condescending when they disregard the Palestinian population (Roth, 2019). Israelis went through a lot when they face the holocaust. The truly need somewhere to settle, and the Arab lands were the best given their origin in the past. They should have been welcomed well into the Palestinian community, given the suffrage they underwent while in Europe. The block Israelis choose to settle in was significant to them, given their attachment to Judaism and the Holy Land. It was home to them, and in the beginning, they were less in number – a situation that would have made it easier for them to integrate with the Palestinians. However, the host community was not too friendly and resorted to being violent; culminating from the threat they saw in Israeli organization and wealth. Israelis had a breaking point and would resort to defend themselves and sometimes extended the defense to harm Palestinians. If Israel was serious about considering Palestinians to divide the block into two blocks for both Israelis and Palestinians, then it should not have increased its geographical influence after the 1967 war. The best solution would have had to be to fall back to the original agreement initiated by the United Nations.
Consequently, the norm has been to continue the conflict with a series of attacks and accusations being labeled against one another. The norm is a continued conflict with new atrocities being created, which may be hard to come back from in the interest of conflict resolution. The current UN resolution to have a division based on the current boundaries between Palestinians and Israelis may be a tall order as there isn’t any balance between the area of land they occupy. The number of atrocities committed over the years foments towards rife conflict non-resolution between the two (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Taking back the negotiations to the early times would be a formidable solution towards forgetting the presently committed atrocities committed by each other.
Works Cited
Pfeffer, A. (2014, November 20). The Israel-Palestine conflict is not just about land. It’s a bitter religious war | Anshel Pfeffer . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/israel-palestine-conflict-religious-war.
Roth, K. (2019, January 17). World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Israel and Palestine . Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine.
Kostiw, N., Rose, H., Alexander, J., Rosenthal, K., B., L., & Hassell, K. (2012, April 11). Home . Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County NJ. https://ethicalfocus.org/the-israel-palestinian-conflict-each-sides-contrasting-narratives/.
Human Rights Watch. (2018). World report 2018: events of 2017 . Seven Stories Press.
