Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science israelpalestina israelpalestina The long-term conflict between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the state of Israel illustrates the potential for very different kinds of consequences to result from the existence of Fourth World ethnic pluralism. For several decades the Palestinian nation sought by every means available, including terrorism and war, to create a state from the territories that Israel claimed and controlled. That search destroyed life but failed to create independence. Then, through dialog and negotiation, they sought to produce a comprehensive peace accord in September 1993. Israel and Jordan then agreed to permit the Palestinian to form a government and create a new state in the West Bank territory, which was returned to them by Israel. The accord symbolized the possibility of nationalities to become independent states through discussion and compromise rather than force and provides a potential model for other independence movements. But the peace process fell apart in the wake of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist in November 1995. And since that time the Israeli-Palestinian situation has not extremely changed. Although, politicians, researchers and common people all over the world try to find out whether the resolves of the crisis situation exist, and if they do, what the outcomes are. After a long research work I can suggest 5 most popular believes of how to resolve the conflict with the outcomes followed. There exist some significant reasons why each of the resolves listed is improbable or too costly. I would like to list some of them. That means that Israel would continue to rule a large Palestinian minority in a non-democratic way, and that Israel would continue to control the land captured in 1967. Many Israelis believe this is the most likely resolve. They say there is no reason to think that problems necessarily have solutions, and that perhaps tension, conflict, and social deterioration are natural in politics. But… Since Palestinians will not accept the status quo, this resolve means ongoing conflict, rising tension, constant Israeli mobilization, large military expenditures, and extended reserve duty for Israelis. This may cause a constant condemnation of Israel in the UN, which would put strain on the US-Israeli relationship since the US would have to defend Israel from criticism. After all, the US would have to provide increasing financial assistance to Israel. And it is too costly. Would it be possible to unite Israelis and Palestinians into one country with equal rights for all and with a government that favored no religious or ethnic group? America has a government, which in theory does not acknowledge religious or racial or ethnic differences. Canada has something similar, with special provisions for the French-speaking people of Quebec. Under this proposal Israel and the Occupied Territories could be united into one country. It is the position of some Palestinians and some Israelis, but mostly of European and American common people. It would, of course, mean full voting rights for all Palestinians, those being 36% of the population. But the unification would mean the elimination of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. Most Palestinians may see this as a trick, and would fear that the Israelis would not deal in good faith, so they would probably resist. Therewith the history of the conflict and the bad feelings that exist would make unification and cooperation an unrealistic option. And finally the questions as 'what would be the name of the new state?' or 'What would be its language?' may cause further tension. In 1947 the UN proposed partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab. The UN assumed that Jews and Palestinians could never live peacefully in a single country and that partition was the only realistic option. This outcome would have advantages. It would give both Israelis and Palestinians their own government and land; it would reduce tensions and allow money to be shifted to human development instead of military use; once there was separation, Israel and Palestine could cooperate economically; and the US would give aid to both sides to make sure the peace worked. But the resolve of one problem cause the outbreak of the other ones. There are over 200,000 Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories. In the past, settler leaders have stated their intention to fight any effort to force them to live under Palestinian authority or to leave their settlements. The same may happen today. A very important thing is that the economies of the two regions have become so connected that separating them into two countries would create enormous problems. Both Israel and the Occupied Territories are small lands with imbalanced economies that are dependent upon each other. In the 1970's an American extremist rabbi Meir Kahane moved to Israel and formed a political party. He described Arabs as a cancer and vermin that had to be expelled. He said the presence of non-Jews in Israel was a corrupting force that compromised Jewish civilization. Today there are two Israeli parties that advocate expulsion of Palestinians. And some public opinion polls say that almost 40% of the Israeli public would consider some form of expulsion. While expulsion would be a radical outcome, there are reasons why it might happen. The Jewish settlements are in place in the Occupied Territories and have taken much of the Palestinian land. They could be used as assault points on the Palestinian population. Also, large numbers of Jews might come from Russia, perhaps a million or more. Also, some Israelis favor an effort to get Palestinians to leave through economic pressure: denying them jobs or a way to make a living. But the expulsion would send shock waves throughout the region and the international system. It would be such an affront to Arabs and Muslims that any government that remained neutral would face overthrow - there would be a general mobilization of Arab states against Israel. Expulsion would create tension between Israel and the United States. Since US interests are promoted by regional stability, destabilization would threaten those interests. Radical Palestinians, and even some Arabs who are not Palestinian feel that Israel has treated its subjects and its neighbors badly and cannot be trusted. They reject the idea of a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab and Muslim world as something that should not be allowed. These radicals resist any settlement with Israel. Since l948 Israel has had wars with all of its neighbors, sometimes with the Arab states attacking first. If the Arab states would form a common military alliance, they might defeat and conquer Israel so that many Jews could be forced to flee, with the remainder living under Palestinian rule. But looking country by country, there is little threat: Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, Lebanon is small and weak and has never had a strong army, Jordan is also small and is militarily weak, Saudi Arabia is distant and not a major military force, Iraq is distant and has been devastated by war, and Syria is no match for Israel. Therewith the United States would act to protect Israel, something that the Arab states know and would not want to confront. But the most serious reason not to eliminate Israel is that it has nuclear weapons and would use them, and the Arab states do not. As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. The position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice. The breadth and complexity of issues tugging at the Israelis and Palestinians provide both barriers to and, perhaps, opportunities for achieving peace. The history, land and culture embroiled the people of the region in its grasp. Unfortunately, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is so long-lasting that making any optimistic prognosis would be not only fatuously but also inhuman towards those who are unwittingly involved in the conflict. The situation has not extremely changed for many years and it will not extremely change in a year, or two, or more. This is the Middle East with its character and its constant desire for tension, conflict and struggle. Bibliography: Word Count: 1440
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.