Post-World War II developments and historical impact

¶ … conflicts between Arabs and the Israelis in the Middle East. Specifically, it will discuss the conflicts in the Middle East, and answer some questions about my vision of forging a lasting peace in the area. The Arab-Israeli conflicts began almost as soon as the Israelis settled in the new nation of Israel after World War II, and they have continued throughout modern-day history. These conflicts are harmful, debilitating, and do nothing to promote a lasting understanding and peace between nations and people. It is a difficult situation, and even some of the strongest world leaders have not been able to find a lasting solution. Perhaps there are so many differences between these two groups that a lasting and viable peace is simply not possible.

If I was a strong world leader I would hope that the Arabs and Israelis could work together to solve their differences and world for a lasting peace. I would try to point out the similarities they have, rather than the differences. I would also try to make them see that their wars are not just Middle East affairs, but they really involve the entire world. Because the United States supports Israel, we are on the list of "infidels" for the Arab world, and so, we pay, and so does Israel. This is not right, and is seems to go against much of the teachings of both the Bible and the Koran.

I think that Israel and the Arabs need to see also how the wars affect the other side, one-on-one. I think that if single Arabs and Israelis could meet, they would understand each other better, and perhaps see each other in a new light. An Israeli mother who lost a son to the war could meet with an Arabic woman who lost a son. They would soon see they have many common bonds, and that the wars have touched each of them equally. One mother is no better than another is, and seeing each other in this light might help break down barriers and create strong bonds.

Perhaps the only other course of action that might draw some results are some kind of sanctions or "blockade" that would make life so difficult for the Arabs and Israelis that they would be forced to come to some sort of an agreement. Perhaps and embargo on supplies and gas and oil, or some other form of sanction against the countries, such as not accepting their trade items, would create such a problem in their country that they would have to sit down and consider a lasting peace. I do not know how that would work, and if the world powers could agree to create sanctions that would be upheld by more than simply the United States. This would be extremely difficult, and some people might see it as cruel, but it does seem like another way to attempt to forge a peace in the area.

I would choose my course of action because many things have already been tried and have failed in the Middle East peace process. It seems that the entire group of nations cannot get together, but perhaps smaller groups could reach some kind of accord that would then spread and become the normal situation. I do not think the residents enjoy the constant conflict, but neither side is willing to give in and capitulate to the others' needs and wants. I also do not think that an outsider, like a powerful world leader, has the power to sway opinion in the Middle East. For the most part, the two sides often seem to resent meddling or outside intervention, and so, they might not welcome the advances of a powerful world leader, even if the intent was nothing but honest and good. One Middle East expert notes, "The roles external actors play in the Arab-Israeli conflict are thus complex, all the more so because the regional actors have their own interests and do not readily accept diktats from outside" (Spiegel 183). Therefore, it is not clear if even the most admired world leader could actually make a difference in the Middle East peace process - they need to work it out by themselves.

Frankly, and sadly, I would hope that each side would respond positively to the chance of peace, but realistically I do not believe that would be the case. The history in the area clearly illustrates continued conflict that began in 1948 when the Israeli nation was first created, and has continued to the present day. There have been numerous peace talks and accords, but the fighting still continues. Writer Spiegel continues, "As a coin of the realm, prestige has limited value and even less fungibility, which became apparent in the procedural haggling between Arab and Israeli negotiators that characterized the initial bilateral negotiations during 1991 and 1992" (Spiegel 184). It simply seems that the Arabs and Israelis will always have differences that are insurmountable and extremely personal.

I do not hold out much hope for a lasting peace in the area, because both sides are so far from understanding each other and coming to any kind of satisfactory conclusion. The Israelis believe they are right, and have a right to the land they settled in 1948, while the surrounding Arab nations feel their land was taken from them and the Israelis do not belong there. Author Stephen Ambrose notes, "It is the presence of the Jewish state of Israel on territory that once was Palestine that causes the Middle Eastern problem, whose magnitude cannot be exaggerated" (Ambrose 345). Each side has some valid arguments, and each side is used to using violence and terrorism to keep their lands and their rights. It is a very difficult situation, and it does not seem to be getting any better. While I would like to see a lasting peace in the Middle East, history shows this has not happened, and I do not think it will happen any time soon. There are too many divisions and too much hatred for the two sides to ever get past their differences.

I think that the most significant Arab-Israeli War is the Six-Day War in 1967 for several reasons. One, is that many people believe Israel started the war with a preemptive strike on June 5, 1967, when they struck Egypt and destroyed nearly all of its' air force. They also attacked the Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi air forces. Ambrose notes, "It was a dazzling demonstration of the superiority of the Israeli flyers and gave them control of the air" (Ambrose 353). I think this was significant for a number of reasons. First, Israel showed they were not afraid of their Arab neighbors. They also showed they had a superior army and air force as they gained a large amount of territory in only six days, and they showed they would not back down. This was also the first time they occupied territory that had not been set aside by the British mandate in 1948. This was significant because it showed Israel was a serious aggressor, and that Arab countries bordering Israel might lose some of their territory if they were not careful.