The Arab-Israeli conflict Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Arab-Israeli conflict - Research Paper Example This essay analyzes the Mandate for Palestine. This mandate majorly aimed at shielding the indigenous population, the Palestinians from right infringement. This treaty became acceptable internationally due to the cognizance of Arab opposition to the historical rights of the Jews in Palestine. This mandate further survived the League of Nations dissolution in April 18, 1946. This mandate aimed at solving the disputes that could arise in the settlement of the Israelis and the Palestinians hence preparing the country for self rule. However, it was to be a recipe for conflicts in Palestine. The failure by the Camp David meeting to give a Framework Agreement on Permanent status yielded conflicts between the Israelis and Palestine. This aimed at ending the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza strip, Palestinian areas. This led to violent protests and radicalization in September 2000 as the seven year Oslo process ended. These Israelis perceived these events leading to the end of Os lo process as an offer totally disregarded by the Palestinians. They also viewed the violence as intentional and encouraged by the Palestinian leadership. They accused them of not willing to accept negotiations for peace with Israel but rather had the agenda of dismantling the entire Israel state. On the other hand, the Palestinians expected the Oslo’s declaration of 1993 to end the occupation of the Israelis in their territory. Finally, the Palestinians were disappointed and disillusioned with this peace progression. This led to the public view that the Israel government used Oslo as a shelter to acquire their land and bring their civilians to settle in it. The open ended nature of this Oslo agreement delayed for up to six years the resolution of the key issues in disputes between Israelis and Palestine. In order to solve the expanded conflict, the open-ended nature of Oslo only pronounced an already existing uncertainty. This would make neither of the conflicting sides be f ully committed towards the peace progress. It only facilitated some three dynamics in the parties. First, determination of the Israeli to give the Palestinians as little land as possible and Palestinian unwillingness to revise their system of education Secondly, lack of willingness of the negotiating party to surrender the negotiating assets. Thirdly, since negotiations had not started, both the side tried to improve their negotiating ranks with Israel remained superior and controlled the land in question (Rothstein and Khalil 39). The ability of both parties to reconcile and make peace limited these agreements to a great extent. Lack of legality in the eyes of a significant category of the population on both parties also affected the peace process. The Israel settlers and the furthest right wing elements profoundly opposed this and resorted to violence to counteract this. On the Palestinian side, the national opposition and Islamists declined to recognize the authenticity of this p eace process. Neither side also had the ability to combine a stable peace coalition for government with the process of making hard compromises (Sylvan 444). The public also unwilling to accept the laborious compromises needed to attain a lasting peace. The stipulations of these agreements concern a transformational process that is keen on revolutionizing both the political and mental surroundings. This makes the resolution of the most difficult problems easy. However, when the two