Israeli-Palestinian conflicts

 Israeli-Palestinian conflicts

Originally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts have been happening between the two cultures since the 1920’s, but the more hostile issues began to appear once Israel was recognized state in 1948. When the United Nations voted to separate Palestine’s land into a Jewish and an Arab state, in 1947, the Jewish accepted the United Nations partition offer, but every not a single one of the Arab and Muslim countries would accept it. The day after British rule over the territory officially ended on May 15^th, 1948, all of the neighboring states, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, sent in their armies to attack the day old state in the hopes to destroy it. While Israel did manage to survive such an attack, they are confronted another war due to Egypt wanting to destroy them with the help of the neighboring countries. Israel was able to preemptively strike Egypt and Syria and attempted to bargain for peace with Jordan. Jordan declined and joined the war against them. Because of that, Israel took control over some Jordanian land, including the West Bank of the Jordan River. After this war, the Arab states declared the three no’s: no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations.

Basically, the whole issue comes down to one side wanting the other side dead. Since the beginning, Israel has only wanted to live in peace and exist as a Jewish state. The country recognizes that the Palestinians to also have the right to their own state and to live in peace. Unfortunately, Palestine and many other Arab nations refuse to recognize any rights of the Jewish State because they do not believe that it has the right to exist. Israel has attempted to make peace with its neighbors many times, but has to also stand its own ground in order to survive. In 1978, Israel traded land for peace with Egypt. Under new leadership, Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel and in return received the entire Cyanide Peninsula, a territory larger than Israel itself with oil reserves. When Israel attempted to make a similar land for peace trade with Palestine they rejected the proposition and reacted by sending suicide terrorists into Israel.

After decades of wars and conflicts in the area you would think that the main ideals and reason for hating Israel would have worn down, but Palestinian culture, including what is taught in schools, is full of propaganda and messages that are not simply anti-semantic, but more extreme with the glorification of terrorism and the pressured idea that the Jewish are evil and that Israel should cease to exist. The hatred from decades ago is being taught to the new generations and the biggest reason why peace between the two nations is so difficult to achieve. The conflict is predominantly over non-tangible material interests, specifically religion and ideology, making the issues much more difficult to divide and nearly impossible to bargain over. The indivisible factor of this war may create tensions, but it is a very poor excuse for a war, especially one that has escalated so much and lasted for decades.

I believe that with the forced addition of ethnocentrism to the curriculum in both Israel and Palestine, maybe even in all states. These conflicts, as well as many ethnic and religious conflicts, are the result of lack of proper education and introduction to cultural acceptance. Somehow, the international community needs to implement a seminar of some kind that would cover the basics of cultural acceptance and the idea that we are all human and deserve the same rights and peace and require nation’s leaders, especially those nations who are the root of the issues. Realistically, that idea is a bit of a reach. Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to take a very long time. It is difficult to change the ideals of an entire nation that has become accustom to such hate, but it all starts with someone or some group standing up for a change. The only hope for peace in this case rests on the views and beliefs of the people of Palestine

Part Two, Question One

The difference between a terrorist and a rebel is intention. The terrorist undertakes their actions with an explicit aim to maximize the amount of terror being inflicted on a population military or civilian and with no particular tactical goal except the advancement of their ideology through fear. A rebel on the other hand undertakes their actions with a specific strategic goal in mind. I use the word “strategic” deliberately, as both terrorist and rebel organizations both likely have broad or overarching strategic goals but differ primarily in their methods. To make use of a specific example, both a terrorist and rebel group might undertake the same action of blowing up a gas plant and killing many civilian and military personal in the process. As a consequence, the economy of the area is destabilized, opposition supply chains are interrupted and the local civilian population is gripped with terror. For us to categorize this as a terrorist act the goal of the attack must have been to inflict fear or terror on the local population, the end result of the terrorizing notwithstanding. A rebellious act, on the other hand, will be intended to result in a strategic gain for the group that undertook the attack. Perhaps the gas plant was a key point the opposition supply lines or served as a depot for military fuel reserves.

If I was at Syrian government, I could recommend   to use same policies to fight the rebels and ISIS .Having such policies will make it easy to handle the two cases   appropriately and most likely will coming up with an agreement. For instance both terrorists and rebels can undertake similar action to bring fear and terror in the society the government policies are set indoor to   protects all the targeted citizens  from many terror or fear in the society.

There is no reason why any of these three groups should be exclusive. ISIS for example, is   an example of a group that is both a terrorist and a rebel organization and undertakes both kinds of attacks. There’s also no reason that an attack can’t be motivated by both the strategic value of the target and the value of inflicting terror in a population.  There is also nothing precluding a legitimate government from also being a terrorist organization.

Part Three, Question Two

The Republic of Mali is a landlocked country in West Africa. It is bordered by Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Cote dIvoire, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal. Mali, formerly a confederation of two French colonies, Sudanese Republic, and Senegal became free in 1960. Mali is an underdeveloped country.  The land in Mali is 65 the country % desert. About 70% of the population is employed in farming and fishing.  The country has a low life expectancy of 48 years, low adult literacy 17 percent of the adult and high infant mortality rate.  The stunning desert landscapes, mud buildings from mosques to granaries shows abstract poverty in Mali. Mali has a weak economy. Mali’s overall institutional weaknesses continue to restrict economic dynamism and perpetuate poverty.

The implemented regulatory that government had implemented were undercut and ignored due to the prevailing political instability. Corruption has also played a significant role in deteriorating the economy of Mali. Crime continues to violate the rule of law and is exacerbated by an inefficient judicial system. This leaves the country vulnerable to political influence and therefore the high level of poverty. The politicians always take advantage of such situations to manipulate the citizens from the right constitutional rights and freedoms, and this has led to civil war which has increased poverty. Open-market policies to facilitate productive investment have not been fully institutionalized, and tariffs and other restrictions inhibit potential entrepreneurs from participating efficiently in the global economy. This causes intellectual poverty within the country since there are no exports and imports. The country cannot earn foreign exchange or make strong ties with other countries for mutual benefits. Government corruption remained a problem and was a key factor in the Islamist takeover of the North.  Government officials do not practice transparency; they demand bribes in both public and private sectors.