The River Jordan Flows Peacefully Between: An In Depth Analysis of the Arab-Israeli Conflict - Research Paper Example

The River Jordan Flows Peacefully Between: An In Depth Analysis of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Table of Contents Chapter I: The Problem and Its Scope……………………………………………………….3 Rationale ………………………………………………………………………………...3 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………...…3 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………4 Objectives of the Research…………………………………………………………….5 Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………….5 Chapter II: Review of Related Literature……………………………………………………...7 A. Interventions of the United nations/League of Nations toward reconciliation...7 B. Different Peace Treaties Done by States to Hasten the Solution of Arab…….8 Chapter III: Arguments and Analyses……………………………………………………….10 A. Confer the Historical Backdrop of the Arab-Israeli Conflict……………………10 1. Discuss the Effectiveness of the Peace Accord……………………………13 2. Analyze the Impact of the Treaty to the Prevailing Middle Eastern………14 Chapter IV: Recommendation for Resolution………………………………………………16 A. Analyze the Real Dynamics of the Arab-Israeli Conflict……………………….16 B. Elevate the Case by Proposing Real Life Probable Solution Juxtaposed…..16 Chapter V: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………….18 A. Be Guided Regarding the Finality of the Flow of the Discussion……………..18 B. Analyze and Discuss Further the Prevailing Questions in the Study………...18 C. Conclude the Extent of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Likeness…………..19 Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………….20 CHAPTER I Rationale Nothing could be scarier than that thought of living in the borders of Arab-Palestine. These two opposing nations are fighting restlessly almost every day. Instead of ceasing the conflict between these two nations, a lot of other countries in the world are supporting the friction. Just like the Korean and the Vietnamese war, which were called the “proxy wars” of democratic and communist countries, the Arab-Palestinian conflict has transformed into another ‘pocket war’ supported by great super powers. It is not anybody’s job to extend military support to these states because what these nations need is humanitarian intervention not in a militaristic way. The peace accord supposedly made for the benefit of the citizens of Arab states and Israel has become a peace treaty with no value. The war in the Middle East will never come to a full stop unless the leaders of the “modern world” start doing something morally right about it. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE Introduction Middle East is said to be a place of troubles for states and people alike. It is almost impossible to think about that place without connecting it with terrorists and other anti government military group. This stereotype has been there for years because of the advent of global terror and of course, the different wars in that area. Since the gulf war, aid to the Middle East has been the highest in the world. It is to protect countries from the continuous hunger and prevailing death problems in the Middle East. The threat now is that there is no assurance of peace between Middle Eastern countries despite the promise of peace accord not just by individual states but by the United Nations and/or previously the League of Nations (Fromkin). Statement of the Problem The Arab-Israeli conflict is a deeply rooted one and the reasons are as confusing as a royal maze. Most people think that it is simply a fight of two countries because of a disputed territory that being Gaza strip, but the gist of the problem is more than that. Israelis think, as they always do, that they are the chosen people of God the Savior. This determination motivates Israel not to let any other Arab state dominates over them. After the tragedy of holocaust, several Israelis have come unto understanding that only a powerful and collective force can keep them away from annihilation. The carved land for the survivors of the Holocaust serves as a symbol of the survival of the Jews from the world’s most violent ethnic cleansing. Never again will the Jews allow other ethnicities to push them against the walls of society (Rogan). On the other hand, the Arabs believe that because of the presence of Israel, most of them have been displaced and have lost their jobs. The carving out of the Jewish land was an imposition of the United Nations supported by states such as United States and United Kingdom. Although it was just to guide the future of the Jews, the cost was the lands of Arabs and other ethnicities displaced by imposition. Both parties have rights over their lands and history is behind them. There is no point in denying that this dissertation will tackle issues concerning the sides of the Arabs and the Israelis as well. Moreover, the analysis will be deepened by discussing the threats of the possible solutions to the conflict (Rogan and Shlaim). Objectives of the Research What were the successes and failures of the reconciliation programs applied to Arab-Israeli conflict? Was the impact that the peace process such as OSLO made significant to the culture? Can the peace treaties applied to Middle Eastern states be used to resolve the case of Arab-Israeli conflict? Hypothesis The first question that must be asked regarding Arab-Israeli conflict is this: why are the policies toward reconciliation not working? Perhaps the better answer for this would be that there really is no way that either side will give way to reforms. The Arabs and the Jews will not give up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively. Therefore, policies toward reformation and peace will only work if United Nations will be able to provide clear and fair division of lands and resources in Middle East. But because UN Security Council is headed by states that have interests in the Middle Eastern conflict, there is a big possibility that peaceful amendments will not be achieved (Burke). At face value, most policies directed by UN and other bodies are simplistic in nature and do not necessarily address the problem in the ground. At best, these policies are not working because supports of big states are insufficient. The United Nations is only as strong as the will of its members. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Interventions of the United Nations/League of Nations toward reconciliation Out of the ambitions of the French and the British, the Palestine Mandate was born. The Arabs, the French, the Zionist made the Balfour declaration, The McMahon and Picot agreement. Cohen asserted that United Kingdom and France were the ones responsible in the creation and the making of a new order in the Middle East since United States was so busy with helping with the restoration of the Europe around 1919. The issue of independence was one of the main concerns of the people when these two countries decided on which territories must be occupied by the Jews. In 1920, The United Kingdom of Great Britain, through the help of United States of America, acquired Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq and France of the other hand had Syria (Cohen). Different articles of the declaration supported the intervention and partition of Palestine: ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. (“The Brookings Report”) ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced . . . The application of the rules, policies and agreements were the ones questioned and not the rules themselves. It must always be understood that the kind of response that the people and the rules will give are all contingent of the way the laws are enforced. (“The Brookings Report”). The report furthermore argued that: It is very true to create a nation for the Jews in the modern place of the Arabs. But it would be almost impossible to create that kind of nation without first discriminating or making the Arabs look like they are second class citizens (Feldman). It is almost to interpret and gain peace what has been given by the British. It is perhaps best to say that the Arabs thought they would have parity with the Jews. But what happened was they were left with promises which were not given honor of United Kingdom (Landis). B. Different Peace Treaties done by states to hasten the solution of Arab-Israeli conflict The treaty promoted by the international arena to promote welfare states with Israel and neighboring Arab countries was a failure in terms of sustainable peace between the nations. The understanding of the true nature of the problem is something that has not been seen by United Nations (Gerges). The United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1917, through the orders of the King ordered the Balfour Declaration. He argued that Palestine must go to the Jews in order for them to have the right place to live for it is necessary for their survival. Moreover, the declaration clearly states that those who are not of Jewish descent must never be discriminated in any way for they must be provided for with the right environment to live. The moral duty of home and country were all given to the idea that the area of Palestine and Israel are supposed to be the Jews’ home (Bard). CHAPTER III: ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSES A. Confer the historical backdrop of the Arab-Israeli Conflict The Arab-Israeli conflict started when the Jews around the world after World War II were sent to a place to start their nation. Following the war of 1948-49, the world has known the conflict of Arab-Israeli as the Palestinian conflict in which the Palestinian Arabs and the Israel Jews were involved. The conflict involves the territories of Israel (Jews), Gaza Strip and the West Bank. According to Beinin and Hajjar, the Jews believed that the lands were theirs since Abraham promised them that. The place was the exact site of the Jewish Kingdom of Israel on earth which was razed to the ground of the Holy Roman Empire. Obviously, this was a way for the Jews to get away from the anti Semitism view of most European countries. On the other hand, the Palestinians are arguing that they must be able to stay in those lands since they are the ones who have the majority of ethnicity, besides they have been there for decades already. They said that the world must never accept a biblical kingdom for a reason in the modern world. And even if the promise of Abraham must be fulfilled, they too must be given place in the land since some of the descendants of Abraham were Arabs too. Never would they think of giving up Palestine because it is their home and their claim must not just be bypassed by European countries (Beinin and Hajjar). This claim was never rebutted by the countries which put the Jews in the current Israel. Although the British and the Americans did not believe that the Jews were the chosen people of God, they still pushed through for the allocation of the lands of the Jews. The biggest mistake that happened there was that the Palestinians were already in that place even the British and the Americans thought of putting the Jews in the “promised land.” To carve a special place with the absence of agreement between parties was one of the roots of the conflict. Beinin and Hajjar argued that the power to have quasi-judicial ruling in the lands of the Ottoman was given to the British and the French for they were the super powers of the time. Both countries got mandate on the different parts of Middle East, as explained in the earlier part of the paper, France got mandate over Syria and British on Transjordan and Palestine. One of the places made through mandates and orders were Lebanon; in which Christians are the majority with only a small margin. Britain also extended its mandate on the areas of Israel (Meyer). The Emirate of Transjordan in 1921 was ruled by Faysal’s brother – Abdullah, thanks to the mandate given by the British over the territory. Also, the west of the Jordan river became the Palestine mandate. The Palestinian for the first time became a unified territory. On November 29, 1947, after the war, the United Nations voted for the existence of Arab and Israeli states. But there were some irregularities and questions in the mandate given by the United Nations. People were asking regarding the partition plan which rule out a majority of the place for the Jews and smaller part to the Palestinians. Also, parts of the area such as Bethlehem and Jerusalem were considered international zones – free from the sovereignty of countries. May of 1948 was the breakout of one of the biggest wars between the neighboring Israel and Palestine. Although the Jews were numerically smaller, they were organized, well-trained and armed compared to the Palestinians who were poorly organized and were not well-armed. This was the reason why the Israelites easily won the first wave of the conflict. However, more and more countries and organizations joined the war. Egypt declared that it will join the war on the grounds that it wants to liberalize the Palestinians from the Zionist movement. But, the power Egypt has brought forth was not enough to stop the Zionists. A lot of other countries such as Czechoslovakia joined in the war and thus has result to the final UN solution. The armistice agreements ended the war between Arabs and Israel and Palestine was divided into three major parts with different leaders and political jurisdiction. More than fifty percent of that territory became Israel, in the East Jerusalem, Jordan occupied it (West bank), and Egyptians had the control of Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, the kind of state dreamed by the United Nations through their partition plan was never applied. The historical problem in Israel is not about Anti-Semitism or the Zionist movement alone, but these movements were used to start a war which sparked because of territorial disputes. No matter how much United Nations divide the lands of Palestine, the Palestinian would always feel like they have been betrayed by the organization which was supposed to promote humanitarian dignity and territorial integrity. Palestinians were ready to fight to the last breath despite the inferiority of their technology and despite the absence of support from western countries. But because of the backing of other Arab states, Palestinians were still able to fight for their lands albeit not completely. As for other Arab states, it was completely because of their attempt to save their co-Arab nations and perhaps get recognition in case they have been able to defend the lands, which happened in the case of Egypt (that eventually got Gaza strip). A. Discuss the effectiveness of the peace accord It seems like the partition plan of the United Nations was not effective for several war attempts between the two parties still took place. No one was to blame for the partition plan was perhaps ‘unfair’. The Jews needed land and the Palestinians wanted their territory. Hence, more and more small engagements occurred. The post conflict era was not so peaceful for the people of Israel and Arab area considering that not even the armistice could stop the conflict between them. They are always in desperate attacks to get the territories back. The increased military capability of states was one of the reasons why the war escalated into an even more damaging and devastating one. Since the Suez Canal was in the hands of the Egyptians, the Israelites joined with the British and French forces to take it back. Although Israel was able to get Gaza and places such as the Sinai peninsula, the pressure from international forces like United Nations then spearheaded by US and Soviet Union compelled them to take the territories back. But obviously since it was cold until 1989, during 1960, it was starting to become one of the pocket wars of United States and USSR. The prior supporting Israel with France and Germany and the latter with Arab States (Beinin and Hajjar). As per mentioned, the cold war has led the United States of America and the Soviet Union to support their allies. US was supporting the Jews while USSR was supporting the Arabs. It was one of the pocket wars of both powers. Not even in small wars will United States and USSR give up. At the end of the day, other allies of both US and USSR were ready to elevate the conflict to the next level. If peace was the goal of United Nations, be it known that even the security members of the United Nations were the ones starting small wars for countries to conflict against each other. Instead of promoting peace, justice and equality in the world, the members of the United Nations Security Council are making it a point to dominate albeit the suffering of other nations. The peace accord of the United Nations has been a skin-deep solution. The real problems of Arabs and Israel are more than just partition. They need a place for sustainable development and if the Arabs think that they will not be able to get it then it is about time that United Nations thinks of another way to promote the benefit of these people. B. Analyze the impact of the treaty to the prevailing Middle Eastern culture Almost all authors around the world would argue that what happened after the declaration of United Nations and the Balfour of United Kingdom brought forth more harms in the Arab-Israeli area. The Arabs never wanted the rulings of the British nor the existence of the Jews in their home land; that is why in 1936, they started the revolts against these people to make sure that their land will be given back to them. They believed that it is not good to listen to the League of Nations mandate and instead, be wary of their situation as people. Even if United Nations forwarded the Peel report, a mandate that will give Arabs much lands compared to the Jews, they still did not like it. They were arguing that integration is almost impossible in these areas so long as the Arabs and the Jews are existing together. The conflict elevated until 1940, President Roosevelt promised King Saud that he will not support the independent Plan for the Jewish state in Palestine. Moreover, Roosevelt argued that he will do his best to support the Arab League. Needless to say, one of the major purposes of the Arab League was to make sure that the existence of a Jewish state would be prevented (Elie). CHAPTER IV RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLUTION A. Analyze the real dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict The real deal with these countries is that they are both convinced that they should dominate their lands; but neither will one of them assume the bottom position of giving up and it is not United Nation’s right to divide the territory into an unfair partition plan. So long as these two groups think that they are being deceived by the international arena, they will continue to extend at any costs. Modern day Russia, Iran, Pakistan and even China are willing to extend support for Arab nations to take their land back and US and its allies on the other hand are not willing to back out. So far, the Middle East receives the biggest aid from western states but the question is: Does the aid from the west help elevate the comfort and solve the conflict of Middle Eastern countries? B. Elevate the case by proposing real life probable solution juxtaposed to the conflict presented Obviously, the policies toward the reconciliation of Middle Eastern countries were not effective because if they were, the conflict would have been solved already. The war in Arab-Israel area escalates everyday and thousands of lives have been taken away already. The best way to solve this conflict is to propose a genuine solution. The primary problem is that a lot of countries have interests like oil or political leverage in the Arab-Israel area thus these countries support their allies to achieve their intentions eventually. The United Nations as a body that promotes truth, justice and freedom should divide Palestine equally. Moreover, members of the United Nations Security Council must give humanitarian, infrastructure and other aid to the conflicting zones and lastly, the involved members of the countries must give up their arms in exchange of protection from UN Security member countries until the peace accord has been completed already. This is the only way to make sure that both countries will not be able to go to war anymore but at the same time, they will still be protected by the most elite military forces in the world. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A. Be guided regarding the finality of the flow of the discussion Therefore, the dissertation shows that the efforts of United Nations or League of Nations were not so effective in assuring peace in the region because most of the Palestinians feel that they have been betrayed and that their displacement must not have happened in the first place. On the other hand, the Jews because of their fight against Semitism and their continuous struggle for the promised land of Zionism would defend their land to the death. This is something that is not supposed to be the case but is happening; only when countries intervene without ulterior motives that the Arab-Israel conflict be truly free from its horrible past. B. Analyze and discuss further the prevailing questions in the study The best way to say that any intervention has been a success is the war would cease. But the obligation of states around the world does not end there. The international arena must make sure that sustainable development is promoted in these countries. It is impossible for peace to take place if every country that aims to intervene would actually have their own hidden interests in the area. Countries give their aid to the Arab or the Israeli states hoping that these nations would be their support in times of crises. Never should this be the guiding principles of states around the world why they help and support other nations. C. Conclude the extent of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the likeness of solutions The Arab-Israel conflict is not a political but a humanitarian one. Political motives have been results of the continuous propagation of anti Jews or Anti Arab ideas. It is best to know that before anything else, these people were part of the greater Middle Eastern land. Now, the extent of the Arab-Israeli conflict is not certain. No one could be sure when and how it will end. If there is one thing certain, it is that these states will continue to fight until the final solution (a fair one) would be casted. Until then, the troubles would still exist. This has been the view of the thinkers throughout the ages and this will be the same principle which must be applied in this conflict (Macchiavelli; Houston and Houston; Cooper). References Bard, Mitchell. Myths and Facts: A Guide to Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), 2001. Print. Beinin, Joel, and Lisa Hajjar. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.” MERIP. The Middle East Research and Information Project, n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. . Burke, Edmund. Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1993. Print. Cohen, Michael J. The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict. USA: University of California Press, 1987. Print. Cooper, James Fenimore. The Last of the Mohicans. New York, NY: Baronet Books, 1992. Print. Feldman, Noah. What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Print. Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. USA: Owl Books, 2001. Print. Gerges, Fawaz. “Egypt and the 1948 War: Internal Conflict and Regional Ambition.” The War for Palestine. Eds. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. 151-177. Print. Houston, Jeanne Wakatsuki, and James D. Houston. Farewell to Manzanar. USA: Random House, 1973. Print. Kedourie, Elie. Islam in the Modern World. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1980. Print. Landis, Joshua. “Syria and the Palestine War: Fighting Abdallahs Greater Syria Plan.” The War for Palestine. Eds. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. 178-205. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. USA: New American Library, 1952. Print. Meyer, Donald. Sex and Power: The Rise of Women in America, Russia, Sweden, and Italy. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan UP, 1987. Print. Rogan, Eugene. “Jordan and 1948: The Persistence of an Official History.” The War for Palestine. Eds. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. 104-124. Print. Rogan, Eugene, and Avi Shlaim. The War for Palestine. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2001. Print. “The Brookings Report on the Middle East.” Journal of Palestine Studies 6.2 (1977): 195-205. Print. Read More