Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Cite this

History and Creation of Israel

The British emphasized on maintaining a large military establishment in Palestine to enforce the draconian immigration policy. This policy was becoming unpopular at home due to massive causalities of British lives. A special commission UNSCOP constituted with a view to recommending a solution to the UN. The commission recommended partition of the territory. The Arabs opposed both partition and bi-national state. The U.S. allowed the partition of Palestine, and offered a large bloc of votes with them. The United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab state in General Assembly on November 29, 1947. The Arab League launched a war against the Jewish community and the Jewish state. The UN decided on partition of Palestine. Arabs was launching attacking over Jews. They beginning attack with on Jewish transportation. The British summoned a volunteer army under Fawzi El Kaukji, to enter Palestine in January of 1948. The Jerusalem was eventually blockaded during the war. Subsequently, the state of Israel was established on May 15, 1948. The joint allies of Arab countries especially Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, invaded over Israel.1

The United States played a crucial role in the creation of Israel. The United States has voted pro Israel resolutions in the United Nations. The potentiality of the U.S.-Israel relationship at the U.N. demonstrates the common values and aspirations of the two nations as they work together to tackle common threats in the global arena. The U.S.A.’s Role in the Creation of Israel Passed on November 29, 1947, with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions in the U.N. The general assembly resolution 181 recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and other for Jewish. On May 11, 1948, Israel declared its independence in accordance with the resolution.

Sixty years ago, The U.N. decided that the only way to resolve the dispute with the partition of mandatory Palestine into two separate states. In the last November at Annapolis, the international community emphasized that: within a year, the establishment of Palestinian state would be the finale of the peace symphony. The former British prime minister Blair strategy that the state should not be the end result of a peace deal but the catalyst that leads to resolution of the conflict: We need to reach on the verge of credibility about the Palestinian state on two issues not related to the core issues. We need narrow down the gap on Israeli skepticism about Palestinian security capabilities..Palestinian skepticism about Israel’s will to lift the weight of the occupation.2

Blair emphasized on the need to re-compose the peace symphony after meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: The problem is not the core issues. ‘Land for peace’ is not really the issue any more. The emergence of their state would enhance Palestinian confidence in their capacity to make it a workable state. Simultaneously, Israelis would restore confidence in the capacity of the Palestinians to deliver on what they seek before peace, even more than peace and their security. Peace making will only be credible if it is visible.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that has been barring solution since Israel’s emergence. The prime reason is the inability of the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to peacefully co-exist. If there is any mutual recognition on both sides, a solution may expect to attainable. This mutual recognition has dedicated to both Israelis and Palestinians who believe in a just and lasting peace between the two peoples and winding up the Israeli Occupation.

The United States is the unique superpower in the world.. The next U.S. president will be crucial to the prospects for resolving Israel Palestinian conflict. American invasion in Iraq has contributed to regional instability; intensify the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. The Annapolis conference is doing nothing of substance to adopt a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The outgoing George Bush is a good friend of Israel. George Bush primary advisers on Jewish affairs is Mark Broxmeyer, think that unstinted supports a policy of unilateral regime change and opposes any peace process that could lead to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. McCain launched a campaign visit to Israel, but did not pay a parallel visit to the Palestinian Authority. In his rejoinder, he expressed to Reuters that the level of tensions, the exchange of fire across Israel’s border aimed at killing innocent people and aggravates Israel Palestinian conflicts.3

American genuine commitment is to facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that could resolve the mutual violence and ensure security for all Israelis and Palestinians. American administration will work to resolve conflict situations and launch struggle against terrorism. According to Israeli government policy, comprehensive peace is the key to the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East; the ultimate concern is Iran’s nuclear program. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are determined to adopt such a policy, which is evidently in greater interests of Israel.

Water Politics in the Middle East

One of the most important factors is the Palestinian society must be given land and resources with enough contiguity to make them a viable society. They should not be compelled to quit resources to Israel, as this lead to economic collapse. In the political scenario of Middle East, water is a resource of great political concern. Israel receives plenty of its water from two large aquifers, which are sprawled across Green Line. The utilization of this water has become contentious issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some of the wells used to draw this water lie within the Palestinian Authority areas, there are many who raise the legitimacy of using their water for Israeli needs.4

The dispute point out that even though Israel withdraws some water from these areas. It also provides the West Bank with 40 MCMs–77% of its consumption. While Israel’s utilization of this water has decreased since it began its occupation of the West Bank. It still consumes the vast majority of it: in the 1950s. Israel utilized 95% of the water output of the Western Aquifer, and 82% of that produced by the Northeastern Aquifer. This water was drawn entirely on Israel’s own side of the pre-1967 border. By 1999, these numbers had declined to 82% and 80%, respectively.

Finally, Israel prioritized the Oslo II Accord. In this covenant, both sides reach consensus to maintain “existing quantities of utilization from the resources.” The Palestinian Authority categorically raised the legitimacy of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Israel admitted itself in this agreement to provide water to supplement Palestinian production, and agreed to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians raise objection against the Oslo II agreement. It was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later. It has been dubbed as “The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.”5

This accord established the right of the Palestinian Authority to explore and drill for natural gas, fuel and petroleum within its territory and territorial waters. It is delineated the major terms and condition regarding regulations on the parties’ facilities.

Holy places: Western wall and Temple mount

Israel always tried to wield influence over Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. While Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were permitted to travel the Western Wall. Palestinian angry mob took over the control of Joseph’s Tomb in 2000, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims. They marauded and burned the building, and turned it into a mosque. There are illegal Palestinian excavations for construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which could threaten the stability of the Western Wall. Israel hinders the access to holy places sacred to other religions. Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, resulting in almost no serious incidents for the last twenty years. Israel has empowered complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.

Palestinians always express concerns over the welfare of Christian and Muslim holy shrine under Israeli control. They point to the several attacks on the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al Aqsa) since 1967, including a serious fire in 1969, which destroyed the south wing, and the discovery, in 1981. The ancient tunnels under the structure of the mosque, which some archaeologists believe, have weakened the building structures on the Al Aqsa (Haram ash-Sharif).6 Some adherents believe that the tunnels were re-opened with the intent of causing the mosque’s collapse. The Israeli government deems that it is the Muslim and Christian holy shrine with utmost sanctity.

Is Palestinian Terror the Result of the Occupation?

This is provocative having really a two edged sword. It is much depends on how one looks at the relationship between Palestinians. It is true that Palestinian terrorism is an outcome of the occupation. It is also true that Palestinian terrorism is a sequel of an existential problem of Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s right to survive has been in dispute since the day it was established in 1948. Terrorism against Israel visualized even before the occupation of territory for Six Day War in 1967. Eventually, Hamas and Islamic Jihad hold the view that Israel has occupied territory since 1948. They would not remain stationary until Israel will destroy. Al Naqba, eventually the catastrophe of 1948 led to creation Israel’s establishment on occupied Palestinian territory, which is still unacceptable to them

The only way to resolve this conflict is a negotiated peace settlement and total ending of enmities on both sides. A hudna or tahida (temporary cease-fire and calm) will not be the solution as Hamas holds the key to its observation. Hamas does not want to negotiate directly with Israel as it refuses to recognize Israel even though it is prepared to accept this through a third party. Meanwhile, there is no trust between the two sides. Israel hold the view that a hudna as a period of re-armament of Hamas which could take ten years in order to regain its losses and renew its armed struggle to destroy Israel.

The outcome leads to severe Israeli Army retaliations in Gaza, which will cause severe tragedy to many innocent people, while those responsible. Hamas leadership and their allies took shelter in their bunkers, planning their next round of attacks. They are not affected by the Israeli Army retaliations! They have their human shields where they took shelter. Their motivation is to unleash crackdown over Palestinians shedding colossal blood. They want to achieve Israel’s total destruction and expect “ethnic cleansing and genocide” of the Jewish people? Is this their goal? Hamas and its newfound ally, President Ahmadinajad of Iran, have hinted at this retaliation. 7

Hamas chalk out plan to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. It could not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. The Israeli army killed many innocent Palestinian civilians indiscriminately. Israel’s retaliatory activities are not directed at innocent civilians. However, the Hamas terrorists hide behind Palestinian civilians in the hope that Israel will kill Palestinian civilians as well. They have succeeded in this tactic. Hamas are cowards and their leader Khaled Mashal hides behind his vicious, Syria. From where, he dictates his followers to cause harm to his own people.

South African Professor John Dugard, an independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. South African professor, who campaigned against apartheid in the 1980s, says in a report that “common sense… dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by al-Qaida, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation.” The report calls for an end to the Israeli occupation.. The report says that until the occupation is ended, “peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue.” A question arises as to what is the definition of “occupation”. 8

Professor Dugard has extended unstinted support for Palestinian terrorism to date. It is curious to read how he will justify that in the 25-page report he compiled and will deliver at the Human Rights Council of the UN next month. This report will be formulated based on previous report that he wrote on 26 March 2002. He depicted Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights, which cannot be denied. Much of this report is logical in its content where he maintain a sense of balance:

The Israeli perception is very different. Israelis evaluate that terrorism is the cause of the crisis. Suicide bombe thrown over Israeli shopping districts, suburbs and settlements and have instilled a sense of fear into all Israelis. There is no guarantee of safety on the streets, in shopping malls and restaurants. The Palestinian violence is not visualized as a response to Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian. Territory is terror unleashed at the very existence of the State of Israel. The situation in the West Bank is also tenuous. Innocent Palestinians are become victim through closures and checkpoints. The Israeli Army subjects the Palestinians who are engaged in jobs within the territories to humiliating treatment. They are often abused and treated with contempt. They also have to wait for many hours before being allowed to enter their villages. The Israeli authority fails to withdraw the checkpoints within the territories. The daily lives of Palestinians are disrupted that many become despondent and cannot find work. All these disruptions in Palestinian daily lives must be blamed on the Hamas and company terrorist groups. Palestinians would be able to get on with their lives.9

The Palestinian life in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) is heavily impacted by Israeli military policies that restrict movement, isolate, and harass the civilian population. This state of “siege” takes the form of closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, regular curfews, roadblocks, checkpoints, electric fences, and walls. It is impossible to move people or goods within or out of the OPT, strangling the civilian population and devastating the Palestinian economy. This state of siege has intensified drastically since the beginning of the second Intifada (uprising) in September 2000.”

The Israeli blockade of Gaza is untenable. The poverty, malnutrition and total collapse of the economy are factors that strengthen Hamas. Hamas is making mischief to the Palestinian people. It is increasing Palestinian suffering by its criminal behavior and it does not intend to rule the Palestinian people responsibly. The people that can get rid themselves of the Hamas cancer. Imposition of the Hamas destruction of Israel through terror on the Palestinian people is irresponsible and dangerous. It is aggravating suffering, economic hardship and more Israel army retaliations that will take a tragic toll in blood. They should declared war over Israel and this is a war to resolve Israel Palestinian dispute. 10

The Arab Peace Initiative

Israel did not accord recognition Palestinian state since 1948 after its emergence. There was a massive change took place within the Palestinian national movement and in the strategy of most of the Arab countries towards reconciliation and compromise with Israel. There was no similar change was visualized on the Israeli official policy. The Palestinians were determined to regain all of Palestine and destroy Israel. Subsequently it was opted for the two-state solution: a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. This resolution was adopted by the Parliament of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO]) in its session in Algiers in November 1988. Since then and up to 2002, the conventiontional position of the Arab countries has been that the Arabs would accept and support whatever the Palestinians accept.

After abortive Camp David talks in 2000 and the resurgence of the second intifada, the Arab countries were blamed for not supporting the peace talks. It has been emphasized on bring about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Arab position became more formalized and an Arab peace initiative was put forward eventually. There was a change in the Arab stance. Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia chalks out a possible peace agreement with Israel. Subsequently, he presented it at the 18th Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002. The Saudi plan was adopted at the summit and became known as the Arab Peace Initiative. Meanwhile, the intensification of violence and military activities between Israel and the Palestinians took the situation turn serious. The negligence on the part of the U.S. administration to follow up on the endeavor by President Bill Clinton to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict leads to the path of unsuccessful.11

The Arabs was disappointed because their initiative fails to reflect the aspiration of Palestinian. They are partially to blame because they did not prepare the ground or market their initiative effectively, either in the relevant international circles including the U.S. or within Israeli public opinion. There was a new regional development. The Initiative was reaffirmed in the 19th Arab summit in Riyadh in March 2007. The growing fundamentalist Islamic movements in Palestine led some Arab countries to conclude that resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would allow them to devote all their resources and energy to tackle the new dangers instead of being preoccupied with the old Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Arab countries took liberal stance to recognize Israel and to establish full peace and tranquility with it if Israel accepts to withdraw from the Palestinian that was occupied in 1967. It will enable the creation of an independent sovereign Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. The Arab East Jerusalem as its capital, and work out solution is to the Palestinian refugee problem. This resolution from 22 Arab states failed to receive the recognition of Israel and the U.S. administration.12

Since the very beginning of occupation, Israel introduced the policy of expansionism by establishing Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. This policy was unleashed by right-wing Jewish circles to establish facts on the ground, prevent future poll out under any possible international pressure. The settlement drives continued over Arab East Jerusalem for the last four decades. At present, Israel is prioritizing on expanding and thickening settlement blocs around Jerusalem and along the 1967-ceasefire lines. The settlements stood obstacle on way to achieving peace. The right wing in Israel has come out successful in blocking the road to peace and diverting attention from authentic positive developments on the Palestinian. Unfortunately, the continued occupation and belligerent attitude by Israel over Palestinians have bred more extremism and radicalism on the Palestinian side especially resurgence of Islamic movement.

In this issue of the Palestine-Israel conflict, we will discuss the Arab Peace Initiative. Why has the Initiative failed to achieve any breakthrough? What else can be done to promote it? Why has Israel failed to meet the challenge of the Arab Peace Initiative? Can the Palestinians and the Israelis solve their problems bilaterally? Is there a need for a third-party role?

The Mutual State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Million of Israelis hold the view that this solution as an anti-Semitic endeavor to destroy Israel. The well-known Jewish philosophers, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes in the 1920’s, cherished the plan. The record of the establishment of the State of Israel is a tragic one. The Nazi holocaust is resulting in the displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population and the creation of a Palestinian refugee problem, which remains unsolved to this day. The two state solution drive as the outcome of the partition vote in the UN of 29th November 1947 was rejected by the Arab states. The majority of UN members recognized it. 13

.The attempts to achieving a two-state solution have not yielded any results. The number of wars had taken a severe toll on all sides to the conflict after establishment of Israel.. These wars never brought the conflict any closer to a solution. Apart from Egypt and Jordan, there was no Arab states maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. As per Oslo Accords of September 13, 1993, it infused fresh hope for a settlement but this hope was short-lived. Subsequently, it was proved that the Oslo Accords was completely failure. The second intifada began in October 2000 and the Palestinian Authority was debilitated by Hamas terrorist activities. The extremist terrorist organization unleashed its suicide terrorist attacks against Israelis in all public places. The nexus between Israel and the Palestinians virtually broke down due to Hamas terrorist activities and Israeli military retaliatory actions. There was a lack of mutual trust between Israel and the Palestinians since then.

The two-state solution drive gained support from international community. The major obstacles on way to resolving the dispute is the settlement policies of successive Israeli governments. The intrusion of Palestinian lands by right wing settlers and the continuous building settlements in occupied territories has destroyed the two-state solution drive. One could not realize that the future independent Palestinian state would comprise of West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. The right wing Zionist settler movements have paralyzed state solution. The settlements in Palestinian occupied territory are expanding. Would settlers evacuate their homes in the occupied territories and repatriate to Israel. It is highly unlikely that the settlers would agree to this.14

The alternative to the two-state solution drive is a federation of Israel and Palestine with a central government represented by both Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have strong national aspirations run contrary to each other’s interests. There is no sign visualized that attitudes of Palestinian and Israelis will change. The hate and mistrust is severe that it seems, the two-state solutions will not be achieved for many years.

Israel show its readiness to negotiate with Hamas if it does not officially change its attitude towards Israel’s existence. It would be prepared to negotiate with Israel does grant de facto recognition of Israel despite its claims to the contrary. Simultaneously, Israel should show willingness to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners including Marwan Barghouti. The settlement drive beyond the green line should be frozen including existing settlement expansion. Israel has not stopped its settlement activity beyond the green line. Israel has also not ceased demolishing Palestinian homes.

US House of Representatives Resolution 185 Aims at Blowing Up UN Resolution 194 Regarding Palestinian Refugees

The adherents of the Israeli occupation, the government in the US House of Representatives sponsored H. Res. 185, which gained a bi-partisan support from the other rubber-stamp House members. The resolution does not adopted any new policy as the US Congress never failed to pass any resolution proposed by supporters of Israel, who see their job as to serve the interests of the Israeli occupation government. This resolution materialized the wishes of Israelis of denying the Palestinian refugees and their right of return to their cities, towns, villages, and lands they were robbed and evicted from in 1948. This right of return was stated in the UN General Assembly Resolution 194, passed in 1948 but confirmed every year ever since.15

It indicates distortion of truth and facts on five grounds in order to foil any attempts to reach a peaceful resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

First, Palestinians were evicted by Israel forcefully from their cities, towns, villages, and lands in 1948. There is no tantamount events for that concerning Jewish Arabs, who have never compelled to leave their Arab countries to Israel. To the contrary, Israeli occupation governments to flee their countries evicted them; consequently, Israeli terrorist attacks were launched on their communities, like what happened to Iraqi Jews in 1951. Second, Israelis have intruded Palestinians, lived in their homes, and used their lands and property, since 1948. Meanwhile, Palestinian refugees have been living in refugee camps. They were never handed over the property of Jewish Arabs who left to Israel.

Third, Jews from Arab and Muslim countries who immigrated to Israel became Israeli citizens. They are enjoying all the privileges of citizenship there. In opposite, Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been given Israeli citizenship. However, Palestinian refugees in the Middle East have never been given citizenship, particularly in Syria, Lebanon, Gulf states, and Arab North Africa.16

Fourth, this is a strategy to foil any attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully. By denying their right of return for Palestinian refugees, Zionists in the US provided unstinted support by dragging the United States to the Iraqi invasion disaster. They would like to continue the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians with a view to keeping oil-rich region in turmoil.

Finally, the resolution is recalling, George Bush forget about his attempt to have an independent Palestinian state before he leaves office this year. This is not the expectation of Bush.. The following September 11 attacks and the Iraq invasion episode, that the US provided unstinted support for Israel are leading the loss of credibility to America. There was a massive anti-American sentiments prevail in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The relevant US government institutions are concerned with foreign policy, national security, and national interests of the United States.

Evaluating U.S. Policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The United States adopted a soften attitude since the emergence of Israel. The role of United States was controversial to the Muslim States of Middle East. The partisan foreign policy of United States still leads to unresolved the Palestinians discord. From the very beginning, the Palestinians took tougher stance on their crisis. Some one argues that it was “understandable” that the Palestinians would defy the U.N. partition resolution. Since, the resolutions drive out and evict the Palestinian from their territories.17 The apprehension was more or less came into reality.

The pro Zionist adherents believed that the war forced upon Israel by the Palestinians and the Arab states produced a turmoil scenario.. The right of the Jews to self-determination in Palestine was recognized by the United States since the emergence of Israel. The delegation of the USA maintains that the decision that lead to partition Palestine with the high principles and aims of the United Nations. It is nourishing the principle of the national self-determination of peoples. The Palestine problem would be resolved on a partition of Palestine into two separate states, because this decision will realized the legitimate demands of the Jewish people on UN Debate November 26, 1947. The United States treated Israel as an “unviable client state,”. The US diplomat expressed it. US foreign aid and military sales to Israel had been minimal. The US had supplied Israel with some Patton tanks; these were being refitted at the time of the war.

The United States continuously utilizes its leadership role at the U.N. The United States is a rock-hard Friend of Israel at the U.N. Even the United States is declining to boycott the Jewish state at the U.N. U.S.A constitutes a powerful emblem of the countries close relationship. Harry Truman emphasized courageous decision to recognize Israel at its founding and to vote accordingly at the UN. The United States has defended Israel whenever it faced one-sided proposals at the United Nations. U.S. ambassador John Bolton criticized the U.N. for promoting an anti-Israel agenda on January 3, 2006, which included the dissemination of maps that do not mention Israel. The United States has continuously exercised its veto to defend Israel from condemnatory Security Council votes. U.S.A. Supports have become concerned U.N. resolutions against Israel since 1986. America’s strong alliance with Israel at the U.N. reflects the commitment of both democratic nations to continue working together to ensure global peace and security. 18

On 21 November 2001, the Palestine Center summoned a panel of experts conducted by Professor Samih Farsoun, member of the Palestine Center Executive Committee, to review on United States Position on Terrorists and Peace in the Middle East at the University of Louisville on 19 November. Powell analyzed the vision of “two states—Palestine and Israel, the. Both side recognized borders mutually. It could ensure economic security, good education, religious tolerance, rule of law, and political participation for the citizen of states”.

Powell has emphasized on taking measure for the termination of the occupation and of settlement activity by Israel and called for both sides to treat one another with respect. It has become evident that Powell’s demands are much tougher on the Palestinians than on the Israelis. Aruri indicated that gruesome crimes committed by settlers and the Israel troops in the Occupied Territories were under-emphasized by the Secretary. “If Mr. Powell’s intent was to be even-handed and act as an honest broker, his list of refrains was terribly myopic and lopsided.”

Many Palestinians believe that the peace process under U.S. supervision become fatality and seems to have no effect on Powell’s diagnosis. Analyzing Powell, Aruri contrasted previous references to freezing settlement drive as a “confidence-building measure”. The latest statement severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope and paralyzed the chances for real peace and security. Aruri evaluated by observing that “the success or failure of Powell’s initiative will depend on whether the promised pushing, prodding, and presenting. The former U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Philip C. Wilcox, Jr. analyzed Powell’s speech as a “welcome and encouraging milestone, because it signals an attempt to actively re-engage in the peace process.” Analyzing in light of the events of 11 September, Ambassador Wilcox described that “inactivity by the United States would be the greatest favor we could do to appease and support the terrorists.” 19

Wilcox indicated a “return to emphasis on some very important words about the occupation, about terrorism, about Israeli and Palestinian security needs, about the closures, and about other things.” The U.S. expects “Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian National Authority President Arafat to resolve these tough issues themselves and their leaderships opposed on many of the critical issues.” The suggestion of Mitchell Report emphasized on stopping the violence on Arafat. Wilcox indicated, “It must be recognized that Arafat is an increasingly weak and ineffective leader whose power is waning. Does Arafat have capability to stop the violence, curb the militants, and regain the support and popularity he needs. The Palestinian society has disintegrated on the issue of peace and reconciliation versus continued violence “

There has been terrorism and turmoil continues to be unabated in the Palestinian territories. Wilcox hold the view “we need to push Arafat harder to stop the violence, but we also have to offer Arafat some incentives to do so.” Wilcox analyzed by forecasting that “the U.S. will become more active and in doing so we can invoke support from the Israelis, the Palestinians, and from the American public as well, so let’s not underestimate ourselves.” 20

Walker cited another factor that is influencing attitudes in the region is “the administration’s commitment to the Middle East. It expressed directly in terms of the Palestinian issue.” There is a perception that the U.S. has an obligation to resolve these issues. He indicates that people in the Palestine hold the viewed that Bush administration is ineffective and lacking leadership in resolving Palestinian dispute. Walker hold the view, “Sharon’s requirements are probably impossible to meet É Arafat has not made a decision to stop the violence.” It is unlikely that there will be significant change unless both sides overcome obstacles.

Neither Israel nor the U.S is hindered by an election at present. The President’s stance is more important than any president is in the past decade on foreign policy matters. The vast majority of American support Israel’s occupation campaigned and voted against Bush. It is impossible that the other members of the UN Security Council would refuse to support Bush. It is unlikely that the heads of national would oppose American leadership on this issue. The U.S. and its allies need strategic assistance from the Arab world. The Israeli peace strategy is increasingly supportive for U.S. role in the peace process. There has been settlement to a conflict that has scarred half a century of Israelis and Palestinians and denied safety and security to both.. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel and their international political scenario are also at stake. Assad’s judgment on Palestinian theme of the peace process is s that Oslo was a terrible tactical mistake by Yasser Arafat. Kessler as “paradoxically an attempt to showcase the rightness of Assad’s prediction and to inhibit any new free-lancing by Arafat” views the recent moves by Syria on Palestinians scenario.


The US counterterrorism policy in Middle East is the major problematic issue for Israel Philistine conflict. National security issues are also another main reason of Israel Philistine conflict. For the United States, government has to be successful in offering an instance of “moral leadership in the world”21 it is very important to allow for humanitarian support to flourish peace and immediate need successful meet up of Palestinian Israel conflict.


Beliak, R. H. D. et al (2004), How Anti-Islamic Rhetoric is Impeding America’s Homeland Security, Muslim Public Affairs Council, PP23-43.

Bard Our (2006), Positions solving the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict, Free Muslim Coalition against Terrorism, Retrieved on 2006-09-27.

Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine Conference (2001), The Effects of U.S. Policy in the Middle East and Central Asia, No. 90, 13 November 2001 pp3-29.

Entous, A., (2007), Olmert Curbs Wbank Building, Expansion and Planning, Reuters, 2007.

El-Najjar, H. (2008), US House of Representatives Resolution 185 Aims at Blowing Up UN Resolution 194 Regarding Palestinian Refugees, CCUN, Editorials, 2008.

Entous, A., (2007), Olmert curbs WBank building, expansion and planning, Reuters, 2007.

Gelvin, James L (2005), The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. ISBN 0521852897, pp 123-187.

Ghazali, A. S. (2007), Islam & Muslims in the Post-9/11 America, Attempt to silence genuine Muslim voices and encourage moderates, pp. 2-10.

Gilbert, M. (2005), The Routledge Atlas Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict (8th ed.), Routledge, ISBN 0415359007, pp. 34-67.

Jacobs, D. (1988), Israel and the Palestinian Territories: The Rough Guide, 2nd revised ed, Rough Guides, ISBN 1858282489, pp. 181-209..

Jamie G. (2004), Palestinians on Palestine, Front Page Magazine. 2004.

Liebreich, F. (2005), Britain’s Naval and Political Reaction to the Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945–1948, Routledge, ISBN 0714656372, pp18-59.

Schenker, H. (2008), Israel needs change too, The Palestine-Israel Journal pp.2-7.

Shimon Z. K. (2007), The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Web.

Gelvin, J. L. (2005), The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521852897.

Sharp, J. M. (2003), The Al-Jazeera News Network: CRS Report for Congress: Opportunity or Challenge for US Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, pp. 4-17.

Sharp, J. M. (2005), The Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, pp. 4-6.

Wikipedia, (2008), Palestine Solidarity Movement, The free encyclopedia, Web.


  1. Sharp, J. M. (2005).
  2. Beliak, R. H. D. et al (2004).
  3. Entous, A., (2007).
  4. Liebreich, F. (2005).
  5. Jacobs, D. (1988).
  6. Gilbert, M. (2005).
  7. Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine Conference (2001).
  8. Shimon Z. K. (2007).
  9. El-Najjar, H. (2008).
  10. Gelvin, J. L. (2005).
  11. Bard Our (2006).
  12. Schenker, H. (2008).
  13. Gelvin, James L (2005).
  14. Sharp, J. M. (2003).
  15. Entous, A., (2007).
  16. Ghazali, A. S. (2007).
  17. Jamie G. (2004).
  18. Sharp, J. M. (2005).
  19. El-Najjar, H. (2008).
  20. Schenker, H. (2008).
  21. Beliak, R. H. D. et al (2004).

Cite this paper

Select style


DemoEssays. (2023, January 3). Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved from


DemoEssays. (2023, January 3). Israeli/Palestinian Conflict.

Work Cited

"Israeli/Palestinian Conflict." DemoEssays, 3 Jan. 2023,


DemoEssays. (2023) 'Israeli/Palestinian Conflict'. 3 January.


DemoEssays. 2023. "Israeli/Palestinian Conflict." January 3, 2023.

1. DemoEssays. "Israeli/Palestinian Conflict." January 3, 2023.


DemoEssays. "Israeli/Palestinian Conflict." January 3, 2023.