You're History

Describe the role of individual decision-makers in the Camp David Peace Process. (November 12, 2009)

kaa4693 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:47:14 +0000

The Camp David Peace Process, starting in the late 1970s, was yet another attempt to create peace between the Arabs and the Israelis. He main players of this process were United States President Jimmy Carter, Sadat, and Menachem Begin. Jimmy Carter was a true diplomat who believed that if everyone would sit down around a table, a solution could be made. Cater, unexpectedly, extolled the idea of the formation of a Palestinian homeland, which later changed to due pressure from the American Jewish community. However, Carter and the Soviets decided that they would meet at a peace conference in Geneva to call for a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They created an ultimatum that consisted of an Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 territories and the legitimization of Palestinian rights for the people. Although this suggestion was rejected, it ultimately got the diplomatic ball rolling. Carter also committed the United States to play an active role in creating peace in accordance with the UN Resolutions 242 and 338. More directly, however, Carter called for the meeting between Begin and Sadat at Camp David in August 1978.

Sadat, symbolizing the voice of the people, made his case known to all about his position on the formation of Palestine. Briefly able to convince President Carter, Sadat continued to show all leaders his reasoning for there to be a re-creation of Palestine. Be made a series of demands to the Israelis (many far-fetched) that consisted of Israeli withdrawal from all territories taken in 1967 and the recognition of Palestinian right to self-determination. His efforts and drive for his goal was admirable. In August of 1978, Sadat agreed to meet with Begin at Camp David.

Pre-1970s, Begin showed immovability when it came to the surrender of any territory, clashing with the desires of Sadat. Begin, however, desired some sort of outcome and often invited Begin to come to Israel to discuss issues. Begin was also immovable in his position of the rejection of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. He also stated that he would have no involvement with the PLO in this peacemaking process. Although both Begin and Sadat seemed long ways away from creating peace, Begin agreed to meet with Sadat in August of 1978 at Camp David.

At Camp David, some progress was made. Two agreements were formed, “A Framework for Peace in the Middle East” and “A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty Between Egypt and Israel.” Begin agreed to get rid of all Israeli settlements from the Sinai and to turn over the oil fields and Israeli air bases to the Egyptians. Sadat was willing to negotiate with the land in the Sinai. With this meeting Sadat and Begin seemed ready to come to terms with one another to hopefully achieve peace and on March 26, 1979 there was a formal signing of the treaty at the White House.

In what ways did the PLO emerge as a leading political player in the Arab-Israeli conflict? (November 10, 2009)

kaa4693 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:46:33 +0000

Created in Cairo in 1964, the PLO emerged to be the sole voice of the Palestinian people who fight to free Palestine from the Israeli oppressors. The people organized various terrorist attacks to hopefully forcefully take land over due to the failure to reach diplomatic terms. With the combining of al-Fatah, the PLO had formed into a real force to be reckoned with. Under Yasser Arafat, the PLO reached new heights, as it was able to speak at a United Nations conference to persuade other leaders that there is no Israel and the Palestinian land should be returned. The PLO augmented the tensions between the Arab countries and Israel and indirectly hindered any peace making that was to occur during the 1970s.

How were Kissinger’s efforts at international diplomacy received in Amman, Cairo, Damascus, or Tel Aviv? (November 9, 2009)

kaa4693 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:45:55 +0000

Kissinger seemed to be well liked by the Arab countries during this conflict. Knowing that peace would only be achieved through a step-by-step approach, Kissinger repeatedly made accords and resolutions to aid in easing the tension between the Arab countries and Israel> Kissinger was an ally of Israel, obviously influenced by the Jewry of the United States, and called for direct negotiations between the Egyptians and Jordanians to hopefully achieve peace. Although his efforts can be seen as minimal, he was able to communicate with all groups within this struggle to create ceasefires and the removal of troops in tension filled areas. Throughout the Middle Eastern world, Kissinger was seen as a fighter for peace in the Middle East.

OPVL Document 7-2 Security Council Resolution 338 (November 5, 2009)

kaa4693 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:33:13 +0000

OPVL

Document 7-2 —Security Council Resolution 338

Origin

Resolution made in the New York United Nations by the Security Council
Created on October 22, 1973

Purpose

To cease the fighting and military activity between all parties
Implement the Security Council Resolution 242 , which was created to maintain peace and order between the Arabs and the Israelis
To, after the cease-fire, establish a long-lasting peace in the Middle East

Value

Extremely important because it called for immediate and direct negotiations between all involved parties
This resolution was followed and thus appeased the tension between the involved parties
Excerpted primary Source

Limitations

Favored the Soviet Union and the United States

In what ways did the PLO change the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict? (November 2, 2009)

kaa4693 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:42:33 +0000

The Palestinian Liberation Army, or PLO, was created during the mid 1960’s as a product of Arab nationalism. The main purpose of this organization was the liberation of Palestine from its colonial oppressors through a form of an armed struggle against the Zionists. The PLO included an army called the PLA, which was formed by taking Palestinians scattered throughout the Arab world. Although the PLO was not the primary Palestinian organization before the Six Days War, it augmented the tension between the Israel and the Arab countries. Combining with Al-Fatah, the PLO became a powerful force. Guerrilla wars reoccurring along the border of Israel were wearing down the Israeli civilians and catching the attention of the hopeless Israeli government. Seeing the Arab countries join together to form the uniform idea to eject Israelis from the old Palestine forced the Israelis to feel that they needed to take action before they were to become the victims.

Before its creation, the Palestinians did not have a true representative body, for after the Israel’s foundation, the Palestinians were forced to move to various Arab states (or refugee camps) in which the formation of representation seemed impossible to form. Often during that time, the governments in which the Palestinians resided did not treat the liberation of Palestine as a dire action. However, when the PLO formed, the Palestinians were able to have their opinions on the Palestinian idea of liberating Palestine heard because a mass of people came together for this common idea. The PLO hit its height of popularity when Nasser died. His replacement was Yasser Arafat, who was then seen as the new face of the Pan-Arabist movement. When he was put into power, all Arabs were then united not only under the hate of Israel, but the idea that they land that was taken by them should be returned. Nationalism rose and as a result so did tension between Israel and Palestine.

How can we use analytical tools to explain the complexities of the world around us? (September 30, 2009)

kaa4693 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:48:39 +0000

The complexities of the world around can be seen as, well, complex and sometimes a cursory glance at information is not enough for full understanding of material. Because of the minimal absorption of information at a first look, analytical tools are taught and used for better understanding. Through analytical tools such as the “OPVL” and the “Levels of Analysis” used in our history class, we can assess the main “players,” the partaking countries, and their effect on history through decision-making and created policies. By picking apart history, it can be simplified and better understood. For the best educational results, it is vital to use analytical tools to explain complexities rather than succumbing to the difficulties.

Evaluate: “The use of force, more than diplomacy or appeals to norms and values, ultimately determine the outcome of a dispute.” (September 25, 2009)

kaa4693 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:03:16 +0000

I’m a firm believer that there is a diplomatic way to solve any issue without the use of force or violence. However, this pacifist system works if, and only if, both parties can agree with the set diplomatic terms. If one of the groups feels the need to show superiority and the upper hand in a situation, pacifism is seldom the path used. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, we can look at Weizmann vs. Ben-Gurion as a comparison. Weizmann, the president of World Zionist Organization from 1949 until 1952 and also the epitome of a pacifist, was a firm believer in diplomatic policies being made to solve problems. However, Weizmann wasn’t able to found the homeland that the Israelis were looking to obtain. His failure, or lack of quick results, was the reason for his displacement by Ben-Gurion, an activist who believed in violence and force to solve issues successfully. The Jews may have resorted to violence because their desires in Palestine were so far-fetched that no diplomatic policy could appease their desires. In this case the use of force triumphed over diplomacy, but this can not be said for all issues. A counterexample to the quotation above could be Ghandi and his “fight” for Indian Independence. Ghandi relied on non-violent methods to gain Indian independence from Great Britain. Without lifted a weapon, Ghandi conquered his goal; India became an independent country on August 15, 1947. As one can tell, both force and diplomacy can effectively determine the outcome of a dispute depending on the situation. However, due to the usual desire to avoid bloodshed and capital within a group, it can be seen that diplomacy is more often used and more effective than the use of force.

Compare and Contrast the differences in approaches, policies, and recommendations of both the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry and UNSCOP. (September 22, 2009)

kaa4693 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:24:13 +0000

The approaches, policies, and recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry and UNSCOP differed greatly from one another. The Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry took the approach of having six British political members and six American political members hear proposals from both Jews and Arabs. This equality between both races were unbiased in nature, but when the committee members visited the DP camps, they immediately seemed to switch mindsets to favor the Jewish population. Their immediate policy was to admit one hundred thousand Jews in to Palestine as quickly as possible. After the initial shock of seeing the DP camps, they formed an long-term idea of the future of Palestine. The committee members decided to form a unitary state in which Jews could be allowed to immigrate, but the would not be allowed to be the majority of the population. This recommendation was set in place to help aid the Jewish population.

UNSCOP approach was to deliberate, within the sanction of the United Nations, on what the future of Palestine was going to be (without direct Arab or Jewish influence). The main idea of UNSCOP was the planning of the partition of Palestine, in which the land would be divided for both parties; the Arabs would get 57% of the land while the Jews would get the other 43%. UNSCOP favored the idea of finally created a Jewish state for the Jewish people and was believed to be the answer to the immigration problem. Also, UNSCOP favored the idea of Jewish obtaining the most fiscally prosperous areas of land due to their economic superiority in Palestine.

Both the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry and UNSCOP shared their preferential treatment toward the Jewish population. These two groups also shared the same ability to create tension between the Arabs and the Jews. Ignoring the Arab rights to “their” land, they table the disagreements of the Arabs and only focus on what is needed for the Holocaust victims. Although it is true that the Jewish population was in need of a homeland, the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry and UNSCOP needed to make sure that their proposals would not enrage the wrong people. These policies fueled the war.

What rationale(s) did Arab leaders use in opposing the emergence of Israel? Were these reasons justified enough to warrant the use of force? (September 24, 2009)

kaa4693 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:38:29 +0000

The Arab leaders felt that the Jews should not have a part of the Arab holy land. Since the 18^th century, the Arab people had dominated Palestine. In the interwar period, the Arabs began to see immigrations of Jewish people. Warily, the Arabs resisted the immigration of the Jewish people. During the Holocaust the immigration of Jews increased significantly due to the release of Jews from the DPs. This Arab land was slowly splitting in two. The UNSCOP’s Plan of Partition with Economic Union formed the guidelines that would be followed for the partition. Naturally, the Arabs didn’t feel that this was justified. The great powers, however, favored for the Jewish population and ignored the pleas of the Arab population. Because their side was not acknowledged, the use of force was necessary to make their ideas known. Interestingly, the Arab leaders saw their people as victims of the Holocaust along side the Jews. Since the Jews were displaced in Europe and were moving into Palestine, the Arabs were being displaced. If you saw your people being put aside due to a war you were not a part of, wouldn’t you fight back?

How did the Allies and Jewish leadership (what remained after the Holocaust) deal with refugees following the end of World War Two?” (September 21, 2009)

kaa4693 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:42:16 +0000

After the Holocaust, the Allies and Jewish leadership looked favorably on the future of the post-war Jewish population. This group of impoverished, homeless individuals had no place to go and the one’s who could return to their homeland often refused to go back to their former homes. There were around seven million displaced persons (DPs), some of which were liberated by the Allied armies. Organizations almost immediately formed such as the Joint Distribution Committee and UN Relied and Rehabilitation Agency in which Allied armies provided physical attention and survival needs. DP camps were formed to assists Jews to get to Palestine. The Allies and Jewish leadership were working to create a solution of the cap on Jewish admittance into Palestine.