Why had four wars not resolved the conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs by 1975? Explain your answer.

Why had four wars not resolved the conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs by 1975? Explain your answer.


For many years there has been conflict in the Middle East. Neither side has been willing to compromise and after four wars there is still no resolution. In this essay I will be looking at factors in the conflict and addressing how they prevent the Arabs and the Israelis from reaching peace.

The original conflict started well before 1948 with both parties claiming the land and being determined to control all of it. The Jews were being persecuted and treated unfairly all over Europe, they felt the only way to stop this was for them to have a state of their own. In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Jews became Zionists and decided that this state should be Israel, the Promised Land God had chosen for them. Similarly, the Arabs also desired to be independent. Previously the Turks and then the British had ruled them; they felt it was finally time for them to take control, but they were also frustrated that they hadn’t achieved this in 1918. Before 1939, Britain was sympathetic towards the Jews and many of them were allowed to immigrate to Palestine. This caused much tension between the two groups of people and this tension reached a climax in 1948 when the Jews took control and declared that Palestine was now the State of Israel. This continued determination to be independent on both sides is evident throughout all the wars and is a main factor that explains why the conflict has not been resolved. This determination is only reinforced by the fact that both sides also lay religious claim to the land.

The first war took place almost immediately and did not do much to resolve the tensions. Instead, it ended leaving the country with a problem of refugees. Over 700,000 Arabs became refugees as a result of the war. Some of them went to neighbouring Arab states but the majority of them stayed in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. This was the only place not occupied by the Israelis. One of the reasons the conflict has not been resolved is because of this. The Arabs are even more determined to reclaim the land for their refugees. However the Israelis were also determined to control all of Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite the majority of the occupants of West Bank and Gaza Strip being Palestinian, during both the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six-day war of 1967 the Israelis tried to take control of the land. In 1956 they were forced to return it to the Palestinians but by 1967 they had taken control. This is a further reason the conflict was not resolved. The Israelis tried to integrate themselves into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, many of the Palestinian refugees felt they were being treated unfairly and the Jewish settlers were getting the better resources from the government. As a result they wanted the land bank and again became more determined because of this.


However, the Israelis could not have conquered the whole of the land without the help of outside powers and one of the most important factors in explaining why the conflict has not been resolved is due to this. As well as the conflict in the Middle East, the world was also going through a Cold War that involved the two superpowers: America and the Soviet Union. Both the US and USSR heavily influenced what happened in the Middle East and the wars being fought. At the beginning of the conflict both superpowers sided with the Israelis but as the conflict progressed, each gravitated towards one side. In general the Americans supported the Israelis and the USSR showed support to the Arab States and the Palestinians. For example, during the Suez Crisis (1956), Nasser of Egypt went to the Soviets for help and in 1967, the Israelis only attacked when they had the full support of America. Despite this, on one occasion in 1956, the Americans forced the Israelis to retreat from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as they did not feel the planned attack was right.

However, even though outside countries showed support, it can be argued that they had ulterior motives and by providing arms and support to the parties in the Middle East they were indirectly fighting between themselves. Due to this, the conflict was unresolved as the outside powers were aiming to out do each other rather than actually promote peace. An example of the outside powers looking out for their own interests is the Suez Crisis, where Britain and France used the conflict in the Middle East to achieve their own aims. They had conspired with Israel to overthrow the Egyptians and as a result, they would retrieve the Suez Canal and Israel could conquer the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  In contrast to this the UN (United Nations) was an outside power that did try to promote peace. They cam to the aid of both parties and as well providing huge humanitarian help to the Palestinian refugees, they were constantly introducing new peace resolutions. However, neither side could fully agree with any of the resolutions, both sides were unwilling to compromise. As a result, the conflict remained unresolved as both sides still had extreme determination and felt confident due to their powerful allies.

It was perhaps because of the role of outside powers that the conflict was so prolonged. Outside countries aided both the Palestinians and Israelis in all four of the wars and despite this the Arabs appear to have lost all the wars. This is partly due to the disunity of the Arab leaders and this is yet another factor that is accountable for the ongoing conflict. The Arab leaders were not very well organised, they all had the same aim but they did not agree about how to achieve it. For example, King Abdullah of Jordan had originally wanted to control Israel himself rather than allow the Palestinians to be independent. Also, Nasser of Egypt had tried to create a United Arab Republic, which was unsuccessful.

Many Palestinians became disillusioned with the Palestinians government. They had lost all of the wars, they could not agree with each other and still had not resolved any of the problems for the refugees. Also, they had lost control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Due to this many people started to look to other organisations to retrieve the land for them. One of these organisations was the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation). The organisation, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat had gained much public support and decided to take matters into their own hands. The PLO thought they could take back control by using violence. They kidnapped and killed Israelis, hi-jacked planes and planted bombs, they were seen by the Israeli government as terrorists. The rise of organisations like the PLO is again another factor that can explain why the conflict was not resolved by 1975 as the Israelis did not want to give in to terrorist threats, they didn’t want to have peace with these criminals and would not submit to them.

There are many factors that can explain why the conflict in the Middle East was not resolved by 1975 such as disunity of leaders, refugees and outside powers. I feel there are two main reasons why the conflict is still a problem. The first is Arab determination and Zionism, both groups believe that the land is rightfully theirs and they are extremely determined and unwilling to compromise. As long as this continues there will be tension and conflict. The second is the role of outside powers. The outside powers seem to be acting for their own interests, while they are still showing support and providing weapons there will be no end to the conflict. The outside powers are prolonging the conflict and by choosing a side, prevent finding a resolution and ever achieving peace.




Popular posts from this blog

The inspector calls and how it relates to biblical parables.

The Parable of the Sower, The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son The Parable Of The Sower There was a farmer who went to sow some corn. He scattered the seeds in the field and the seeds fell in various places. Some of the seed fell on the path where it was eaten by birds and stepped on. Some of the seed fell on rocky ground, and the plants sprouted but dried up because the soil had no moisture. Some of the seed fell in a thorn bush and grew up but were choked by the thorns. Lastly some seed fell on good soil and the plants grew and produced lots of grains. Jesus then explains the parable and says: The seeds that fell on the path represent those who hear, but the devil comes and takes the message from the hearts and stops them from being saved. The seeds that fell on the rocky ground represent the people who except gods message gladly but it doesn’t sink in and when there faith is on the line they fade away The seeds that fall among thorn
Read more

How does Priestley convey his message in An Inspector Calls?

Being a co-founder of the Socialist Commonwealth Party, Priestley felt that his political views on socialism were very important and these views are displayed prominently throughout An Inspector Calls. Priestley uses characters to represent the different generations and also uses the Inspector as a mouthpiece to distribute his views; several critics describe the Inspector as Priestley’s alter ego. The Inspector conveys Priestley’s most important message, that a change in society’s attitude is required. Through Sheila’s words, “of course he knows. And I hate to think how much he knows that we don’t already know yet” we can see that the Inspector is believed to be an omniscient presence. He speaks as if he is divine by referring to the people as men and during his last speech he says, “If men will not learn that lesson, they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.” These words are influenced by Priestley’s own experiences fighting in the First World War. Portraying the Inspec
Read more

Tybalt is to blame for this tragedy - Romeo and Juliet Essay

“Tybalt is to blame for this tragedy” discuss with reference to Act 3 Scene 1 On one hand, Tybalt is heavily involved in the build up to the tragedy in Romeo and Juliet; Shakespeare portrays him as a villainous character who is the cause of several deaths and misfortune. Throughout the play Shakespeare exposes Tybalt’s violent nature and his anger is particularly shown, when Tybalt confronts Romeo and insults him in Act 3 Scene 1 saying, ‘thou art a villain’. This, in the Elizabethan period was very insulting and shows how quick Tybalt is to start fights, proving that he is hot-tempered. Critics argue that Tybalt caused the tragedy as he encourages a brawl by inviting Romeo to ‘turn and draw’. Had Tybalt not said this, Mercutio would probably not have been provoked to fight and consequently die. As a result of Mercutio’s death, Romeo killed Tybalt, forcing Romeo to leave. This led to a chain of disastrous events resulting in Romeo’s, Juliet’s and Paris’ deaths. It can also be argu
Read more

The Mayor of Casterbridge - Why is the ring at Casterbridge a suitable place for Henchard to meet Susan?

Why is the ring at Casterbridge a suitable place for Henchard to meet Susan? There are a number of reasons why the Ring could be considered a suitable place for Henchard to meet Susan. Firstly, Hardy makes it clear the Ring is not a place of happiness. It is described as a Roman amphitheatre in the heart of Casterbridge where no joy can be found, even for boys who tried to play cricket in it. He even accounts the story of a woman who murdered her husband being put at the stake in the Ring. This could suggest the Ring was a suitable place for the meeting as just as an evil woman was put to rest in the Ring, so will Henchard’s terrible and disgraceful mistake. As the Mayor of Casterbridge, Henchard is considered as a very respectable man and it would greatly damage his reputation if people discovered he had sold his wife and child. This is another reason the Ring was such a suitable place for the couple to meet as it is the “spot as being safest from observation which he cou
Read more

How does a river change along its course?

Image
Geography essay: how does a river change along its course? A river through the time that it exists changes its course from how it first began. The two parts of the river is the upper course and the lower course. These two parts of the river have very varied properties and do opposite things. Before finding out how a river changes on its course we must first know what a river does. Rivers do three main things: ·          Erosion (when water hits rocks and makes it wear away into silt) ·          Transportion (when the current of the water takes the silt with it) ·          Deposition (when the water leaves the silt behind) These things can be shown in a simple diagram: Erosion varies in the two courses. In the upper coarse vertical erosion takes place. In the lower coarse lateral erosion takes place. Other features of the upper and lower coarse are: ·          Small streams (upper) ·          Slow current (upper) ·          Mostly straight (upper) ·        
Read more

Why George R.R. Martin Reigns Supreme Over J.R.R. Tolkien

When it comes to the world of epic fantasy literature, two names stand out: George R.R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien. Both authors have captivated readers with their immersive worlds and richly crafted characters, but when it comes to comparing the two, George R.R. Martin undeniably takes the throne as the superior storyteller. One of the reasons why Martin surpasses Tolkien is his realistic and complex portrayal of human nature. Martin's characters are flawed, multi-dimensional, and morally ambiguous, making them relatable and compelling. He doesn't shy away from depicting the darker aspects of human behavior, such as political intrigue, betrayal, and the consequences of power struggles. In contrast, Tolkien's characters tend to be more archetypal, with clear-cut divisions between good and evil, and less depth in their motivations and actions. Furthermore, Martin's world-building is unparalleled in its intricacy and detail. The fictional realm of Westeros in his "A S
Read more