World History: Arab-Israeli War - Essay Example

World History In modern history, there are several issues that have lingered on since World War II that still cause sporadic violence and contention. For instance, there is the division of the Germany as it was done by the victorious allies, or the partition of India and Pakistan which has left the Kashmir flashpoint but nothing has generated as many questions and differing ideas as the Arab Israeli conflict in Palestine. The history of this conflict begins with the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which in and of itself has been given several different colors depending on who is giving an opinion on it. For example, the Israeli call it the war of independence, while the Palestinians call it ‘al-nakba’ which can be translated from Arabic to mean Catastrophe. The facts which can be ascertained from historical documents and reliable sources are in mutual agreement about just a few points (Gerstel, 2004). From these sources we can be reasonably certain that the Arab nations did not accept the creation of a Jewish state when the British partitioned the land of Palestine into two states. We also understand that the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan attacked the newly formed state soon after the British left the region but we find differing opinions as to why the war was started and which party can be blamed for provoking other countries into taking offensive action against them. If we take Arab sources such as the PLO, they examine and describe the issue by painting the Israelis in a very bad light. As to the start of the war it is suggested that that the peaceful villagers of Deir Yassin were attacked by ‘Zionists’ and many men, women and children were killed and mutilated by them. The reason given for this attack was to cause fear and panic to make the Palestinian population leave the country. This tactic succeeded and the Palestinians flew from their homes and once they did, they were not allowed to come back after the war making which made them refugees. The entire blame for the war is laid at the feet of the Israelis and such sources fail to make any mention of the other Arab nations which attacked Israel as soon as it emerged as a country. The Palestinian side does not make any allowances for the fact that there could be another side to the same argument and they use extremely strong words which could be considered hate based speech in many civilized societies. Then again, the application of such tactics is to be expected of the Palestinians political organizations since they have been at war with the Israelis for many years. At the same time, the various Israeli sources raise some very important questions since they blame the invading Arab nations for the war and clarify their position by saying that that there would have been no refugees at all if the Arabs had not started an offensive against Israel. In fact, handling the refugee problem is the sole responsibility of those who created the problem i.e. the invading nations. Quite clearly, both the Arabs and the Jews living in the region come across as being extremely biased so their utility only extends to the fact that the root cause of the issue is complex and debatable. Moreover, the conflict between the countries has not been kind to either side and it would probably be a good solution for both sides of the issue to come up with answers to their problems with negotiations and compromises on both sides (Hada, 1990). Israel admits that the problem has had a significant toll on their state even to the effect that Israel became the first country in the world to use women as a part of their fighting forces (Creveld, 2000). Palestinians and the regional Arab nations on the other hand have also suffered heavily and have largely lost the media war with international sympathies often on the side of the Israelis rather than the Palestinians. What these countries need to understand is that Israel is a fact and acceptance of Israel should no longer be an issue for other parties in the debate. It seems that some Arab nations and other countries who do not accept Israel are fighting a rather useless battle against reality. Instead of denying the existence of Israel or saying that Israel is an occupied territory, they should try and become diplomatically involved in the process to come to a political settlement which can be a lasting solution. An interesting suggestion is given by by First Things (2003) where the editor says that: “Whatever one may think of the justice or injustice of its establishment fifty-five years ago, there will be no secure peace in the Middle East until its neighbors accept Israel as an irreversible fact. It is possible they never will, or at least will not in the next fifty or seventy-five years. In which case it is possible that a battle-wearied and demoralized Israel will not endure. (First Things, 2003, Pg. 77).” At the same time, Israel also bears the responsibility of acting in a mature manner and she has to deal with her neighbors in ways other than war. Schenker (2004) is very skeptical of the role played by any Israeli government which supports acts like building walls along the border. Clearly, the political actions of former Israeli governments as well as the present era have led certain Israelis to question their motives and even wonder out loud if Israel’s right to exist might be put in danger because of the bad decisions being made by the government (Schwarz, 2005). Schwarz (2005) asks the very important question regarding the existence of Israel. He is not discussing the past but discussing the future to see if Israel will remain as a country in the next hundred years. Taking a rather pessimistic view, he says that, “In the long run the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain a problem without a solution (Schwarz, 2005, Pg. 29).” Given the causes of the conflict are deep, muddled and often provide conflicting reports, it seems that pessimism with regard to the Arab Israeli conflict is valid. The need for Israel stems from the assumption that Jews need to be separated from others, that they are too different and the biases between Jews and other people too deep to overcome. Strangely enough, despite the attempts being made to mainstream all of America, some American Jews wish to have separate schools for Jewish children (Rabkin, 1999). The answer to the Jewish question is no longer being sought by anti-Semites or those who think that Jews should be treated differently; in fact, the question is being asked by Jews themselves of which many are living in present day Israel. It has been assumed many times in history that the Jewish question had been answered but the question has not been answered and it will not be answered until there is mutual acceptance and a chance for reconciliation between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Interestingly, one does not ask if France has a right to exist, it is not questioned whether Brazil is a legal country or not and even why the existence of America was once seen as a rebellion, conducted by individuals who were traitors to their king, but is now something taken as granted. Of all the countries in the world, only Israel has to justify its existence and justify the need for its creation as a homeland for the Jews. That in itself can be seen an anti-Semitic question but the study of history demands that the need for the existence of Israel must be examined to know what can be done in the future to prevent the need for more countries due to religious intolerance. Given the persecution of Jews throughout their existence and all the suffering endured by this nation, it seems justified to me that they should deserve a homeland to call their own. At the same time, the analysis made in this paper also begs the question of taking an alternative view of history regarding what would have happened had the Jewish settlement of Israel been created in Latin America rather than its present location in the rather turbulent Middle East. Works Cited Creveld, M. 2000, ‘Armed But Not Dangerous: Women in the Israeli Military’, War in History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 82-98. First Things. 2003, ‘Israel 55 years later’, Journal of Religion & Public Life, vol. 132, pp. 76-78. Gerstel, Y. 2004, ‘My Land Zion’, BBC, [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/my-land-zion-yulie.shtml Hada, L. 1990, ‘Reforming Israel--before its too late’, Foreign Policy, vol. 81, pp. 106-128. Rabkin, J. 1999, ‘A choice for the chosen’, Policy Review, vol. 93, pp. 37-41. Schenker, H. 2004, ‘Israels Failing Wall’, Nation, vol. 278, no. 9, pp. 6-7. Schwarz, B. 2005, ‘Will Israel Live to 100?’, Atlantic, vol. 295, no. 4, pp. 29-32. Read More