The Middle East Conflict Free Essays

The Middle East Conflict Will Israel Ever be Able to Exist in Peace? The Middle East Conflict Will Israel Ever be Able to Exist in Peace? From the day Israel declared itself an independent nation, neighboring countries and terrorists has routinely attacked it. The history of Israel and the conflict between the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors is long and complex. To begin to understand the root of the violence, one must first know the history of the creation of the state of Israel. We will write a custom essay sample on The Middle East Conflict or any similar topic only for you Order Now Some of the major questions that have to be asked to understand the conflict and whether or not there can truly be peace include the following: 1. How was Israel created 2. What has caused the tension in the Middle East 3. What role does the International community play on the Middle East conflict How Was Israel Created After the First World War, the defeated Ottoman Empire was divided amongst Britain, France, and Italy. The British mandate included Transjordan and Palestine, though this was the first time the name Palestine had ever been used. Britain’s main role was to implement the Balfour Declaration, which stated the â€Å"Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object† (Hurewitz, 1979, p. 101 – 106). The Arabs were originally given 80 percent of the British Mandate, now known as Jordan. During World War II, Britain refused to allow European Jews, who were attempting to escape the Nazis, entry into the British Mandate. Instead, they were either sent to the African nation of Mauritius or sent to detention camps (Lenk, 1991, p. 2). Even, after World War II, Britain wanted to severely restrict the flow of Jewish immigrants from Europe to Palestine. Finally, Britain announced their desire to end their mandate of the territory by May 1948 and they turned the problems regarding the division of the land to the United Nations. The United Nations came up with several plans. The one that was voted on and passed 33 to 13 was UN Resolution 181, which divided the remaining portion of the British Mandate into two independent states with Jerusalem falling under International control (United Nations, 1947, p. 132 – 133). The UN resolution gave the half of the remaining 20 percent of the original mandate to the Arabs. Israel declared itself an independent state on the 14th. It was immediately recognized by the United State, the Soviet Union, and many other nations. However, the Arab world refused to recognize Israel and over the next several days Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel (Anti Defamation League, 1999). Israel defeated all of the invading countries and starting with Egypt in February 1949, they all began to sign armistice agreements with Israel. Israel gained an additional 8 percent of the original mandate after the war. The Gaza strip went to Egypt and the West Bank to Transjordan. The United Nations Conciliation Commission estimated there were approximately 711000 Palestine refugees as a result of the 1948 War (1950). However, Jordan was the only Arab country who would accept them and allow the to travel outside of UN refugee camps (Bard, 2008). What Has Led To The Current Tensions? After the initial 1948-49 War, many Arabs in Israel choose to try and leave the country and flee to other surrounding Arab nations. However, since Jordan was the only country willing to accept them as citizens, major resentment built up towards the Jews. Again, in 1967 Egypt and Jordan invaded Israel in another attempt to wipe Israel of the map. This war lead to the annexation of the West Bank, the Gaza strip and the Suez Canal into the hands of the Jewish state resulting in even more Palestinian refugees. Once more, resentment continued to build against Israel. The irony of the situation is the Palestinians have had land and they have had opportunities for their own country, yet the Arabs in the region were not content with the land they already had and continued the violence towards Israel creating the refugee problem. As more and more Palestinians are displaced, the blame is put on Israel for not doing enough to help out the Palestinians and help them make permanent homes. Yet, at the same time no other Arab nation will take the time to help the Palestinians. Instead they use them in an effort to obtain their own goal of a complete annihilation of the Jewish State. Iran, for example, helps to fund and support Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both of which are terrorist organizations. This outside influence adds more to the already tense situation in Israel. Another factor that has led to the hostilities was the creation of a Jewish state in a predominately Muslim region of the world. The Muslims see Israel and Jerusalem, the third holiest Muslim city, as belonging to them. On the other hand the Jewish people biblically have the same believe about Israel and Jerusalem belonging to them. Both groups were given the legal permission via international law that provided both groups with land in the area. While the Israelis were content with the land they were given, the Palestinians were not, thus, the start of the 1948-49 war. When the other Arab nations attacked Israel, they violated international law and started a war of aggression. Since they were defeated, International law says all land captured from the aggressive armies is to remain in the hands of the country that was attacked. The Palestinians saw this as though Israel were stealing their homeland. However, by refusing to accept the UN’s partition plan, they gave up any right they had to the land. Though the rhetoric that these Palestinian areas are being occupied illegally by Israel helps to fuel the violence between the two groups. What is the International Community’s Role be in Trying to Ensure Peace in the Region? The United Nations was directly responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, as was noted earlier. Therefore it is partly the responsibility of the UN to help ensure peace. The problem right now is violence is not condemned on both sides of the conflict. When a Palestinian terrorist walked into a Jerusalem seminary and 8 rabbinical students, the United Nations could not pass a condemnation of the attack (Heilprin, 2008, March 7). Yet, at the same time, the United Nations condemned Israel for their use of force to try and stop the groups of Hamas terrorist firing rockets that are targeted at Israel civilians. The United Nations actions of condemning Israel for their use of superior force to defend itself against those targeting Israel civilians, while at the same time refusing to condemn terrorist attacks targeted at civilians, merely emboldens the terrorists. The radical Palestinians who commit these terrorist acts see this lack of condemnation from the UN as a free pass to continue their targeting of civilians. Israel’s only logical response is to fight back, thus causing the violence to continue with at a cessation in site. Then again with an increase in world wide Anti-Semitism over the last few decades, it has ecome unpopular, in the world, to support the Jewish state. Why should the World Care? While the United Nations has shown weakness on the issue of supporting Israel as they continue to fight terrorist in an effort to protect its civilians, the question should be asked if there really is a need to support Israel and protect them from being completely eradicated. The first thing to consider is displacement. If the country of Israel were to ever fall to the Arab world and it become a Muslim nation again, where would the Jews go? You would first have the immediate influx of Jewish refugees would be most likely forced from their homes. Additionally, what happens if another Holocaust happens in which one group is attempting to eradicate the Jewish people? Where would these Jews go to be guaranteed an escape from this persecution? The next big issue as to whether or not Israel is worth saving is the question of what has Israel done for the world so far? Good News from Israel gives plenty of examples of how Israel has contributed to the world. Here are just a few. Motorola’s research and development facility in Israel developed the cell phone. Both the Intel Pentium microprocessor and Pentium MMX Chip were designed in Israel. The AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in Israel. Israeli doctors are making major medical breakthroughs including finding was to stop cancer in its tracks. Israel has the third most companies listed with the NASDAQ, behind Canada and the United States. These are just a few of the contributions that Israel has made to the world (http://www. newsoftheday. com/). All these and more have been accomplished while continuously engaged in war and being the target of terrorist. The question should be how could the International Community afford not to play a role in establishing peace in the Middle East while not removing Israel from the map? What can be Done To Achieve Peace? Unfortunately, it seems as though the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East is for a devastating and complete loss for one of the sides. The sad reality is peace talks and cease-fires do not work. The only way to truly achieve an end to a conflict is for an enemy to be dealt a crushing blow or a complete annihilation. The biggest problem is Fatah and other organizations that are part of the mainstream Palestinian lifestyle have called for the destruction of Israel (Ratzlav-Katz, 2007, November 20). They refuse to stop their fight against Israel until the country of Israel no longer exists. These leaves Israel with the option of defending itself and acting aggressively to prevent more civilians from being targeted by Palestinian terrorists. Perhaps ones all the terrorists have been eliminated, the two sides will be able to sit down and reach an agreement that will result in a lasting peace. In order for peace to fully exist, though, after the terrorist have been removed from the equation, Israel’s neighbors are going to have to recognize it as a legitimate country with a right to exist. Perhaps once these two conditions exist, there can be a true heading towards peace. References Anti Defamation League. (1999). Israeli War for Independence. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www. adl. org/ISRAEL/Record/48war. asp Heilprin, J. (2008, March 7). Libya Blocks UN from Condemning Violence. Yahoo News. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_re_af/un_mideast_violence Hurewitz, J. C. (Ed. ). (1979). The Middle fast and North Africa in World politics: a Documentary Record, vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lenk, Karl. (1991). The Mauritius Affair, The Boat People of 1940/1941. London. Ratzlav-Katz, N. (2007, November 20). American Jewry: Fatah Charter Calls to ‘Eradicate’ Israel. Arutz Sheva. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from: http://www. israelnationalnews. com/News/News. aspx/124315 United Nations. (1947). Resolution 181. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://daccessdds. un. org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/IMG/NR003888. pdf? OpenElement United Nations Conciliation Commission. (1950, October 23). Genera l Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://domino. un. org/unispal. nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883! OpenDocument How to cite The Middle East Conflict, Papers The Middle East Conflict Free Essays string(37) " of a peace process was constructed\." The purpose of this research paper will be to assess and analyze specific principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management as reflected by a specific story of the Middle East peace process within the named article. The article is entitled â€Å"The Wounds Of Peace,† by Connie Bruck. This, of course, is one individual author’s perspective, yet, nevertheless, it is the view of this author that much of the content is historically factual and accurate, with a definite sense of individual perspectives as purported by the author. We will write a custom essay sample on The Middle East Conflict or any similar topic only for you Order Now To the greatest extent, this author shall attempted to meet those requirements as per the related principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management. Similarly, this will take place within the context of the Middle East peace process, guided within a specific time and place. To a large extent, this author should also like to state that his perspectives will emanate from those theories and principles which are rooted within negotiation and conflict management. Probably, no where else on this Earth (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland) are the principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management more contentious than those that exist within the Middle East To begin with, this author should like to offer some brief background as to the content of â€Å"The Wounds Of Peace† prior to my assessment. â€Å"The Wounds Of Peace† is a label which the author has applied to attempts of leaders of various countries throughout the Middle East to come to terms and create, or forge a partnership. To this extent, the author cites a process that began in Oslo, and, as the author states â€Å"One that compelled fiercely reluctant men on both sides to forge some of the most unlikely and creative partnerships in the history of diplomacy. † (Bruck, p. 4) The chief players throughout this scenario include Benjamin Netanyahu, Yasir Arafat, Shimon Peres, as well as others. The author begins with a discussion of a visit with Shimon Peres, who had been succeeded by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Peres had expressed serious trepidation regarding his successor and his ability to handle the complex diplomatic aspects relating to the various strategies and tactics regarding the peace process and conflict management. To a large extent, it must be stated that the players, the respective geographical areas, and the positions they hold amongst each other(s) are highly complex. In fact, it is virtually impossible to define the role as well as its multidimensional ramifications in terms of diplomacy, and the many principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management as is the case. Based upon the article by the New Yorker, there exists clear sympathies or empathies for certain players, specifically, Peres and Rabin; whereas Arafat is portrayed as a somewhat ignominious character, who extends his hand for the purported purpose of establishing peaceful relationships, but one is not led to fully believe this, based upon the illustration as portrayed within the New Yorker. In one section of the article, the question is asked — â€Å"Is Israel alone? â€Å"(Bruck, p. 3) Within this section, the author alludes to Peres’ wanton destruction of his country’s security by consorting with Israel’s purported enemy. The question which crosses my mind is whether or not peace is salvageable, if solvable as well. R. Bolton states that conflict is unavoidable, and to be human is to experience conflict. (Bolton, p. 25)He maintains that there exists specific benefits of conflict, as well, and categorizes these into both realistic as well as non-realistic conflict. Furthermore, he adds that social scientists have discovered that love only endures when dissension is faced openly. In an excerpt from his book â€Å"Love And Conflict,† sociologist Gibson Winter writes â€Å"Most families today need more honest conflict and less suppression of feeling†¦ here are obviously proper times and occasions for conflicts. No one benefits from the random expression of hostile feelings. There are, however, occasions when these need to emerge†¦ we cannot find personal intimacy without conflict†¦ love and conflict are inseparable. † (Bolton, p. 45) This reminds me of Mr. Peres’ observation that â€Å"Deep in my own thinking, I felt we could not remain a Jewish people without a moral code. I thought that being Jewish, the real meaning is to give preference to the moral consideration. If we don’t do it†¦ beauty, you have in Paris, more, wine, music. The only thing that give Jewish history its wine and perfume is really the moral consideration. † (Bruck, p. 3). The larger players involved must be cognizant of the many vagaries as relates to negotiation and conflict management. It is not enough to be a politician, and a master at diplomacy, but a human being and someone who can read others well. This also applies to situations, and as Mr. Peres points out, this is steeped within Jewish history. A dispute begins when one person or organization makes a claim or demand on another who rejects it. The claim may arise when a perceived injury or from a need or aspiration. (Boulding, p. 12) When the miner complains to the shift boss about the stolen boots, he was making a claim that the company should take responsibility and remedy his perceived injury. The shift boss’ rejection of the claim turned it into a dispute. To resolve a dispute means to turn opposed positions — the claim and its rejection — into a single outcome. The resolution of the boots dispute might have been a negotiated agreement, an arbitrator’s ruling, or a decision by the miner to drop his claim or by the company to grant it. The author makes numerous points that interests, rights, and power are three basic elements of any dispute. In resolving a dispute, the parties may choose to focus their attention on one or more of these basic factors. At the same time, peace in theMiddle East is a complicated affair, as indicated at the outset of this research paper, and some success was made several years ago in Oslo wherein the rudiments of a peace process was constructed. You read "The Middle East Conflict" in category "Essay examples" Shimon Peres points out that his fear is that Prime Minister Netanyahu will not understand and will not do the right thing. He acknowledges that the government is still in the world of rhetoric — yet, making compromises is an unpleasant thing, and it must be done if peace is to survive. At least this is the sense that I received clearly from the words of Mr. Peres. He further criticizes Prime Minster Netanyahu for some of his actions, including appearing at a rally on a podium draped with a banner that read, â€Å"Death To Arafat! † This of course, runs contrary to every conceivable and viable principle and theory of negotiation and conflict management — particularly as exists throughout the Middle East. Much has been written regarding those principles and techniques surrounding conflict management. This has evidenced it self both on a domestic level as well as an international one, and within C. Kennedy’s â€Å"Managing Public Disputes,† which is published as a â€Å"Practical Guide To Handling Conflict And Reaching Agreements† the author acknowledges that disputes over public issues comes in all sizes and shapes. They are caught between communities and their decisions makers, between factions in government, between organizations, and between organizations and the people. Few people enjoy dealing with conflicts and public disputes exhibit specific characteristics. (Kennedy, p. 11) There may also be a complicated network of interests (as is the case throughout the Middle East), and new parties may emerge. Similarly, a variety of decision making procedures may be utilized for the purpose of establishing negotiation and conflict management. The author further states that conflict is dynamic. Unmanaged conflicts seldom stay constant for long. Simple solutions that might have worked in the beginning may be ineffective and even cause more damage if they are attempted when the conflict is fully developed. For example, restoring communication between warring factions will simply make matters worse if the wrong people do the talking or if the parties no longer trust each other. (Kennedy p. 47) In the case of the many players throughout the Middle East, the United States has served, to a large extent, as arbitrator. Similarly, one can go back to the Administration of one President Jimmy Carter, who managed to negotiate, as a third party or arbitrator, a peace process amongst both Presidents Anwar Sadat and Prime Minster Begin. (Ben-Dor, p. 78)Nevertheless, the negotiator faces many tedious obstacles which are not always overcomeable. For example, values and tension throughout the Middle East consistently impede both the abilities and efforts of the many players immediately involved to apply the principles and techniques of conflict management for the purpose of total peace throughout all of the Middle East. The fact of the matter is that the geopolitical structure as well as many factions are highly fragmented throughout the Middle East. (McKinley, p. 23) Even Yasir Arafat cannot speak for all of the so-called enemies of the Jewish people, as with him, and the same with Mr. Peres, any move towards compromise is seen as being a traitor. In fact, Peres as well as Rabin (Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin) was referred to as one for chancing the move of compromise towards a final settlement of total peace throughout the Middle East. Both of these images of negotiation are incomplete and inadequate. Value creating and value claiming are linked parts of negotiation. Both processes are present. No matter how much creative problem solving enlarges the pie, it must still be divided; value that has been created must be claimed. And if the pie is not enlarged, there will be less to divide; there’s more value to be claimed if one has helped create it first. Sebenius, p. 33) An essential tension in negotiation exists between cooperative moves to create value and competitive moves to claim it. (Sebenius, p. 35) In my opinion, there exists an onus amongst all parties involved to bring with them to the table a sense of negotiable element or value. The value that the negotiator brings with him for the benefit of the advisory must not be misleading and beneficial for all. This is the negotiators’ dilemma, and one may envision a paradigm wherein the value may extent from one end of the continuum, possibly identifiable as anything from good to great to terrible to mediocre. Sebenius, p. 40) Nevertheless, the prospects for both implementing as well as establishing the principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management are incomplete absent the aforementioned. Throughout â€Å"The Wounds Of Peace,† and the contents therein, it appears that Mr. Peres’ attitude towards his successor may well indeed have validity. The negotiating of power requires a number of important elements beginning with its very definition. From there, one may identify various categories of power as well as their legitimacy and commitments which relies heavily upon the power of knowledge. As one author states, there is a subtle but significant difference between communicating a warning of the course of action that I believe will be in my interest to take should we fail to reach agreement, and locking myself into precise terms that we must accept in order to avoid my taking that course of action. (Woodhouse, p. 20) Extending a warning is not the same as making a negative commitment. If the United States honestly believes that deploying 100 MX Missiles is a vital part of its national security, then letting the Soviet Union know that in the absence of a negotiated settlement we intend to deploy them would appear to be a sound way to exerting influence. In these circumstances, the United States remains open to considering any negotiative agreement that would be better for us than the MX deployment. We are not trying to influence the Soviet Union by committing ourselves to refuse to accepting an agreement that would in fact be in our interest (in hopes of getting one even more favorable to us). We are simply trying to influence them with the objective reality that deployment seems to be our best option in the absence of government. (Fisher, p. 56) Throughout this research paper, I would not attempt to address all of the intricacies of the many players, their titles, names, interests, ad infinitum, but I should like to highlight some of the more salient elements which I believe are particularly relevant to the theories and principles as related to conflict management. As Bruck has stated in her New Yorker article, â€Å"difficult as achieving the Gaza-Jericho accords had been, the challenge they posed was dwarfed by that of Oslo II. In Gaza, there were about a dozen Jewish settlements, so the withdrawal of Israel troops from the Palestinian – populated areas there had been relatively straightforward. In the West Bank, the settlements were numerous — about 140 — and had been strategically dispersed. Peres, employing one his favor aphorisms, said, â€Å"You can make an omelet from eggs, but you cannot make eggs from an omelet, and, fortunately, that area -the West Bank- has been thoroughly omeletted. (Bruck, p. 9) The players involved in the Middle East peace accord must be exclusively cognizant of the various strategies and tactics as related to the conflict management, in addition to all their other moral, political, cultural, social, geographical and allying responsibilities. A closely related proposition is that the political concept manager should seek to dispel the â€Å"worst case† fears that many contestants in a competitive policy debate will consciously or unconsciously bring to the bargaining table. (Fisher, p. 72) This is perhaps an obvious but still significant proposition. The offer further states that as far as possible the leader of the conflict management process should require parties to the policy debate to express their arguments in ordinary language, or, in more difficult cases, to translate technical language into terms that are understandable to non specialists. Being here is straightforward. First, it is possible to have a competitive debate if different parties cannot understand what other contestants are talking about. Anyone who has experienced a discourse between military people and foreign policy analysts or between financial analysts and production people would be immediately familiar with the tendency of these and other specialists to talk past each other. The results of such an untranslated discourse is a Tower of Babel. (Yates, pp. 131-131) It is inevitably the objective of the negotiator to arrive at an agreement, and in my opinion, communication is key. Similarly, how to make the best of one’s assets is the subject of scrutiny by Fisher and Ury. They state that protecting yourself against a bad agreement is one thing. Making the most of the assets you have in order to produce a good agreement is another. (Fisher, p. 52) The many facets involved within the problem and the people are far too numerous to delineate within this writing. Nevertheless, the authors do at one point address peace in the Middle East when they allude to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty blocked out at Camp David in 1978, demonstrating the usefulness of looking behind positions. Israel had occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula since the 6 Day War of 1967. (McKinley, p. 198) When Egypt and Israel sat together in 1978 to negotiate a peace, their positions were incompatible. Israel insisted on keeping some of the Sinai. Egypt, on the other hand, insisted that every inch of the Sinai be returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Time and again, people drew maps showing possible boundary lines that would divide the Sinai between Egypt and Israel. Compromising in this way was wholly unacceptable to Egypt. To go back to the situation as it was in 1967 was equally unacceptable to Israel. The focus on interest instead of positions is all important. One useful rule of thumb is to give positive support to the human beings on the other side that is equal in strength to the vigor which may emphasize the problem. This combination of support and attack may seem inconsistent. Psychologically it is, the inconsistency helps make it work. A well known theory of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance, holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it. (Fisher, p. 5) Most of what the negotiators had designed in both Gaza-Jericho and Oslo was to be put into effect by the military and security forces of the two sides. And, particularly in Oslo II, where the populations involved were so interlaced, where the agreements’ map looked (as Abu Alaha said with distaste) â€Å"Like a tiger skin,†(Bruck, p. 10) extensive cooperation between the two was mandated. The situation was highly problematic — as volatile, one might expect, between the two security forces as between the two populations whose security they were trying to protect, as stated within the New Yorker article. One might ask how in the did they ever reach accord?! Much the same way, I believe, that they did at Camp David. Both leaders were willing to expose their vulnerabilities for the sake of peace. As a result, Mr. Sadat was assassinated, as was the case with Yitzhak Rabin. The complexities as well as the sensitivities which pervade the varied principles and theories of negotiation and conflict management, are, as indicated at the outset of this research paper, arguably the most complex on the planet. How to cite The Middle East Conflict, Essay examples