The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Analysis

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict Analysis The Israeli Palestinian conflict is the conflict that has been going on between Israel and Palestine. It refers to the political tensions and hostilities between the Arab and Jewish community in the Middle East that lasted over a century. The conflict started in the late nineteenth century. This was the period that Ottoman Empire rule where Arabs at the ottoman Palestine considered themselves part of the overall Arab territories which were under the rule of the same empire. The disputes that arose in this time were caused by religious affiliations. Discussion The start of the conflict is traced to Jewish immigration to Palestine after the Zion movement was established. It is seen as part of Arab nationalism. The central argument is that the people of the Arab universe constitute one nation that is brought together by a common language, culture, religion and historical heritage. The conflict started as a political and national affair that was about competition for territorial issues following the failure of the Ottoman Empire (Milton-Edwards 15). In 1917 to 1948 the Jewish Arab conflict arose over the land of the Palestine. Both parties were under the British rule. Between 1948 and 1967 Israel was declared a state and was followed by a war that lasted six days. British mandate was terminated from Palestine. For armies from Jordan, Syria, Iraq sand Egypt invaded the then formed Israel. The war ended with Israel winning. It took territory beyond borders for a proposed Jewish state and the borders for a proposed Palestinian state. From 1967 to 1973 Arab leaders met in Khartoum to try and respond to the war. They resolved not to recognize, not to initiate peace and not to negotiate with Israel but instead started the attrition war in order to make Israel give in the Sinai Peninsula. The war ended in 1970 after the death of Nasser. In 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. The Israel army was not prepare and took sometime to get themselves organized. The use and the Soviet Union joined. When Israel started taking control of the war USSR threatened to intervene with its military. The USA made a cease fire in October 1973 avoiding the nuclear war. Egypt signed a treaty with Israel in 1979 to end the conflict. The Sinai Peninsula was given back to Egypt and the Gaza strip remained with Israel. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. In 1981, Israel attacked Iraq and decoyed the nuclear equipment that had been created. The gulf war erupted and Iraq fired 39 missiles to Israel which did not respond to this to eliminate chances of encouraging a great war (Gunderson 93). In September 1970, on the black September, thousands of people died mostly Palestinians when Hashemite king Hussein quashed the autonomy of Palestinian organizations. From 2000, violence between Israel and Palestinian armies intensified. The violence has mainly featured Hamas militants, Hezbollah fighters, and Palestinian and Israeli soldiers. Groups on the two sides including Hamas and gush emunim created religious arguments on their uncompromising beliefs. Israel through the likud party puts forward that they have a biblical right over the land of Israel and its attachments. Christian zonists support the Israelites because they agree with the ancestral right of land for the Jews to Israel. Muslims also claim that they have a religious connection to the land of Israel through the Quran. The Muslims argue that Israel was promised to all descendants of Abraham including the children of Ishmael, Abrahamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s eldest son. The Jewson the other hand claim that Israel was given to the descendants of Abraham`s younger son Isaac only. The Muslims despise all holy places that Jews bring out from the bible for example the temple mount and put their own such as the dome of the rock. Thus Muslims claim that Muhammad passed through Jerusalem when he was going to heaven making Israel the Islamic waqf that must be ruled by Muslims. Apart from the religious issue, the land issue also aggravated the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The two nations have been for a long time been involved in conflict over land issues. Israeli settlement in the western part has been the main land issue. The occupation of the wet bank and Gaza strip has been the main focus. Palestine wanted Israel to return all the land that it conquered in the 1967 war. Israel refused to do so and instead continued to develop settlements through out the peace process. Refugees that were pushed away from their homes in 1948 when Israel was created and others who were affected in 1967 has been an issue in the conflict. Palestinians want these refuges to be resettled at their original homes in Israel. Israel has opposed the resettlement of these refuges claiming that it will result to Arab Palestinian majority and would finish Israel as a state for Jews (PappÃÆ' © 188). The Palestinian state has also been an issue of concern. The Palestinian liberation movement wanted a two state solution which Israel is against. Mainstream Palestinian wants a state to be created in the west bank and Gaza. Israelis are opposed to this because they think it will act as a breeding ground for terror associations. Israel repression in response to Palestinian violence became a major issue of concern in the conflict. It did this first by reducing the entrance of Palestine at the border. This brought down Palestinians standards of living and was humiliated at the check points. Following terror attacks, Israeli forces opened fire quickly sometimes killing innocent civilians (Gelvin 123). The conflict between Israel and Palestine has had some serious implications. Monetary implications have been great for the two countries. Much money and funds have been used to purchase arms and equipment used in the war. Millions of dollars have lost, stagnating the economic growth of the two countries. Heavy budgeting on the war has had a negative influence on the economies of the two countries. The conflict has contributed to a water crisis in the Middle East. Population growth has exuded the water available for the two nations. Water is perceived as a gift from God to which people should have an inalienable right. The Dead Sea which is located at the lowest elevation is slowly vanishing. This is due to the gradual water loss. The sea ha split in to two separate lakes and its coastline resided considerably. Israel and Arab governments have diverted the water for agricultural and industrial purposes. This replenishes the red sea. The Palestinian government has demanded that it wants a fare share of the water. Official and unofficial actors from the international community should seek to create forums and time to promote brainstorming and exchange of ideas that involve Israeli and Palestinian communities with regard to peace and ways of achieving it. This not only raises the awareness of each others grievances but also formation of equal and strong networks where ideas are voiced without consequence. Communities and leaders must be ready for and be encouraged to make compromise in order to achieve peace. Arab states are supposed to help Palestinians in this process. Americans and Europeans are supposed to work through political options ahead of negotiations. This support would enable Palestinian leadership to pick up on the positive Israel gestures and proposals as well as pressure Israeli leadership to respect international momentum towards peace. Conclusion Lastly there is need for leaders and communities to face the hard truths of the conflict. The basic issues such as the borders, security, refugee return and settlement are not going away but must be faced in peace efforts. Efforts must address the security of Israel and the finality of the agreement, making clear to Palestinians Arabs that it is final.

Personal Narrative- The Lonely Middle-Aged Woman :: Personal Narrative Writing

Personal Narrative- The Lonely Middle-Aged Woman I got off the bus, not knowing where I had to travel in the cold night. I had a rough idea, but I’ve been having terrible luck trusting my rough ideas lately. I thought I’d ask someone for details. The passengers that had gotten off the bus with me obviously knew where they were going, because their strides were purposeful and quick. Looking for someone to help, I turned to a middle-aged lady in smart business clothes and voiced my question. She looked at me strangely for a second, as though I was speaking a foreign language, then just as quickly she snapped out of it and told me the direction I had to walk. Then she added "But I have to go that way. I can give you a ride if you’d like." When she said that my mind traveled years back to primary school, when they would sit us all down on the floor and try to convince us not to do stupid things. Don’t light fires. Don’t play with guns. Don’t trust anyone wearing a trench coat. Don’t accept rides from strangers. I’ve broken most of these, except the trench coat one, so I decided that I should accept her offer. The situation, statistically speaking, was more dangerous for her than for me. Newspapers are hardly littered with stories about middle-aged women kidnapping and torturing innocent teenage boys. We walked to her car. She pointed it out to me, and I wasn’t surprised to see that it was a little red two-door BMW. She opened the door for me first and I slipped into the leather seats, running my hands along the wood dashboard that contained an elaborate stereo system. I pictured her zipping along the road, humming happily along to a Brahms concerto. Or maybe some jazz. I didn’t ask her. Sitting in her car I was consumed by warmth, not just from the heating, but because of her. If men use cars as penis extensions, this was the female equivalent. We kept talking. It was on a different level to small talk, but neither of us said what we were thinking. I felt her quiet desperation- she told me of her divorce; or rather she talked enough to let it slip. She talked about her sons and their jobs and wives. I’ve never experienced any of it but I had an idea how she felt.

Characters Compared to Celebrities Essay

Tom Buchanan is the husband of Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Tom can be described as an extremely wealthy brute of a man. He is very athletic and successful. Tom is also very selfish, and he will do anything to get what he wants. In addition he has absolutely no shame in anything that he does and he thinks very highly of himself. Tom is very judgemental and often forces confrontation. These characteristics can be found in many spoiled and greedy celebrities, one of which is Donald Trump. Three qualities that we will examine between Tom and Donald will be greed, selfishness, and  I would think that Tom represents a Donald Trump figure. Tom’s fairly ostentatious state of being in the opening chapter is something akin to Trump. Additionally, Tom has no problem with the â€Å"magnitude of me† and the sense of his own superiority. Indeed, Trump is similar in that he has no shortage of faith in self. Where I think that their real connection lies in how they feel that their â€Å"success† allows them to parlay this into speaking with an air of authority on any subject. Tom has no basis or any idea to speak of â€Å"the coloured people† or the â€Å"threatening of the White society.† He holds no degrees of advanced study in this field nor does his theory even make logical sense. Yet, because he is wealthy and represents a sense of power, he is able to speak with absolute clarity, and presumes that others will take what he says as gospel, as if the law is being written as it is being said. Trump operates in much of the same manner. He believes that his insights on national topics are relevant because he is a success. He can publicly weigh out a run for the political office of President because of his success and his wealth. His ability to speak of issues such as 9/11 or Rosie O’Donnell are only accepted, or entertained because of his wealth. In this manner, Tom and Trump are fairly similar.

Leadership And Gender Inequality - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 740 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/06/24 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Sexism Essay Did you like this example? A leader is a person whose capacity to manage develops, therefore, expanding his or her influence, and making him or her role model to others; this places him or her in the best position to unleash the potential of others as they conquer their own challenges (Trimm, 2015). With his or her ability to lead, he or she steps up to oversee and decide on what actions to take. According to Kase (2017), great leaders are great decision makers; they understand and manage their emotions by being reasonable and objective in making decisions that positively impact themselves, and everyone around them. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Leadership And Gender Inequality" essay for you Create order Additionally, Maxwell (2018) expressed that leaders become great not because of their power, but because of their ability to empower others. Empowering people is more powerful than commanding them to move towards a common goal. With these statements, a leader can simply be defined as a person who is rational in making decision, and is capable of implementing these decisions in such a way that would empower other to people to reach a common goal. As human beings gifted with reason and will, everyone, regardless of race and sex, have the capacity to think, to decide, and to act accordingly. Also, humans are social beings who belong to interpersonal relationships, and can communicate, relate, and empower others. While some abilities are innate in everyone, some have insufficiencies with these abilities. While there are people considered as ?born to be a leader and are naturally gifted with the aforementioned skills, others have ?disabilities or stereotyped as incapable of taking leadership positions. They are ?inferior in the avenue of leadership; however, they can be leaders, too, by improving their leadership skills. Bradl ey (n.d.) once said, leadership is unlocking peoples potential to become better (as cited in Trimm, 2015). While some leaders are born, some leaders are made. This was supported in an article which says: History is full of people who, while having no previous leadership experience, have stepped to the fore in crisis situations and persuaded others to follow their suggested course of action. They possessed traits and qualities that helped them to step into roles of leadership (Ward, 2018). Therefore, everyone is capable of being leaders. When the need arises, anyone, with his or her capacity to think and express, can step up and be a leader because life complications strengthen [ones] character, bolster [his or her] credibility, and build [his or her] capacity (Trimm, 2015). Although everyone is capable of being leaders, sexism still paved its way to leadership. Setlhodi (2018) defined sexism as a belief in the superiority of one sex over another, prejudicing, and/or discriminating against them and leading to attitudes that foster social role stereotypes based on sex. Stereotypes that produced socially expected gender roles are considered to be a major cause of sexism (Setlhodi, 2018). In the past, these stereotypes resulted to a traditional belief that a leader must possess typical masculine characteristics such as competitiveness, aggressiveness, toughness, and successfulness (Kirchler, 1992). Furthermore, it was enumerated that male managers are intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced, outstanding instructors, unselfish opinion-leaders with an enviable entrepreneurial spirit. Leadership, therefore, was considered to be an avenue only for men, while women dont occupy such positions. In 1974 and 1980, women were described as adorable, likeable superior (Kirchler, 1992), without mentioning anything about their competence and skills. Setlhodi (2018) explained that such labeling borders on discriminatory perceptions and leads to unequal treatment of women and men whereby women are subjected to sexist discriminatory attitudes. The oversimplified understanding about men and women and their capabilities resulted to an unequal and biased positioning of men and women in the society, corporations, and even in politics. In Korea, the existence of women was only based on their ability to reproduce, and thus contributing to social ?self-perpetuation; wherefore, they had no social respo nsibility, punishments, and benefits (Jiyoung Suh, 2013). These women have no socio-political responsibilities and were deprived of their rights to vote, and an opportunity to occupy a leading position. Furthermore, in the Philippine context, presidents who led the country are consecutively males. Even though there are two female presidents who led the country, Philippines was led dominantly by men. The disparity is made even more even more evident in religion, specifically in the Roman Catholic. The pope, together with the other bishops, leads the whole Church, while the sisters are in convents or in their mission areas, doing the ?feminine roles. These instances reflect the inferiority of women in the context of leadership and management.