NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... Palestinians. However the mere mention of any Muslim control of even the smallest portion of Jerusalem was viewed as totally unacceptable by the Israeli people. Popular opinion in Israel towards Barak, and his policies, took a serious downturn, as he was viewed as weak and willing to compromise. As was written in the April 9 issue of Time Magazine (Fuel for the Fire, Rees, M. ) "Barak resigned in December saying he wanted a "renewed mandate" to pursue peace with the Palestinians. " An election was to be held in February 2001 with Barak and opposition leader, Ariel Sharon as the two principal candidates. In February, shortly before the election, a last ditch effort was made to achieve a working peace with the Palestinians.
The peace attempt failed and the public confidence in Barak grew even worse. The election was a sweeping victory for Sharon and a sweeping blow towards the peace process. Sharon, a former military hardliner who was instrumental in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, immediately assumed a hard-stance towards the Palestinians. He immediately pulled all previous offers made by the Barak regime from the table. In Sharon's Israel, there was to be an uncompromising attitude when dealing with the Palestinians.
Despite six months of fighting the violence seemed to be building daily following Sharon's election; both the Palestinians and Israelis braced for even greater violence. Each action of terrorist actions by the Palestinians harbored retaliation from the hard line Sharon Administration. Reciprocally, every Israeli response to the terrorist actions added more fuel to the fire. The cycle is vicious, violent and basically unproductive for both sides. However due to public opinion and the presence of hard-liners in each government, retribution is basically forced when either side acts against the other. With the recent actions of radical Arab suicide bombers coupled with sniper attacks on the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza, Ariel Sharon has been forced to deliver on his campaign pledge of no tolerance towards any Arab aggression.
As reported by the Washington Post on March 28, 2001 (To Israeli's, violence is becoming Untenable, Hockstader), "Israeli helicopters rocketed Palestinian police buildings in Gaza and the West Bank town of Ramallah on Wednesday in response to a wave of bombings, including a suicide attack that killed two Israeli teenagers. Flares lit up the night sky over Ramallah during the assault. The Israeli military said it was hitting specific targets aimed at the ''elements responsible for terror. '' These targets were specified by Israel as Force 17, Arafat's Crack Security Forces, headquarters. This article shows the perfect demonstration of the action, reaction cycle that is currently in place.
The actions and subsequent reactions between Palestinian Militants and The Israeli Army continue to volley back and forth exchanging gunfire and often mortar fire. A typical series of headlines for the last three months might read, "Israelis killed in Terrorist Attack" followed by, "Israel Defense Force Retaliates Against Palestinian Targets. " Meanwhile the leaders of both sides engage in political rhetoric and placing blame on the other side. As written in the April 16 issue of Time (In Search of Peace, Sharon Raises the Stakes, Rees, M. ), "In response to terrorist acts, mortar and rocket attacks on Palestinian targets Wednesday signaled Israel's intensified military campaign to force Yasser Arafat to end the violence. " The Israeli made it known that terrorist acts would result in retaliation with little "lag time"'. According to April 3, 2001 's Washington Post (Two Bombs in Jerusalem Wound 30, Williams D. ) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hard-line government in Israel said it has abandoned a policy of restraint that it said had been in force until now and henceforth will show no mercy in striking Palestinian sources of terrorism and violence.
Adding additional fuel to the fire are the statements of Sharon in the March 3, 200 l Washington Post article (To Israeli's violence is becoming Untenable, Hockstader, L. ) "Sharon said he neither hopes nor expects that Israel will retake Palestinian-run land. Yet if Israel were forced to do so as a "last, last resort, " he said, the diplomatic price would be secondary to the "well-being and security of the people. " The mere mention of the Israeli's reoccupying Palestinian territory simple swells the tide of violence. Now, a burning question being asked is, Is Arafat or the more radical leaders in charge of the P. L.
O? Also if Arafat is viewed as being moderate in his dealing with Israel, will he be replaced by an Arab hard-liner, similar to how Sharon replaced Barak. As reported in the Washington Post on April 9, 2001 (Arafat tones down Message, Associated Press Asia), "Arafat enraged the Israelis Sunday, when he accused Israel of "fascist military aggression" during the four months of Israeli-Palestinian violence. " Additionally, Arafat vowed to fight on after the recent Israeli counterstrike's during April. In a gesture that is sure to be rejected by the Palestinians, On April 13, 2001 Sharon offered a sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank. However, unlike the Barak plan that would grant all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, this state is to consist on less than half of the West Bank and would be a de-militarized state.
The Sharon proposed Palestinian state would grant no control, full or shared, of East Jerusalem to Palestine. The April 13, 2001 Washington Post (Sharon might ok a Palestinian State, Review, M. ) reported that Sharon was quoted as saying, "Barak made an awful mistake in offering all of Gaza and the West Bank I'm not meeting him (Arafat) and I will not meet him as long as there is terror, ''s sharon said. ''The turning point will come when Arafat begins to realize, and I believe that this is becoming clear to him, that my government will not negotiate under terror and violence. Peace negotiations will not be conducted, simply will not be conducted. '' Thus far, PLO leader, Arafat, has yet to comment on the proposed state. With all the examples above it is very clear that the cycle of violence between Israel and The Palestinians is far from closed. With an increasing anti-Israel sentiment growing with fervor throughout the region a growing number of experts are bracing for another possible major Israeli/Arab conflict or at least worsening overall Arab/Israeli relations. With the recent Israeli bombings of Hizballah targets in Southern Lebanon, could renewed hostilities be about to start between the Israeli's and Shiite radicals?
Allegations of Syria supplying the Shiites with ammunition and equipment are already circulating. Israel has even recently blocked routes through southern Israel to Egypt, attacked Syrian defense bases, and even occupied the Gaza Strip for a short period of time. It is very evident Israel is in essence on an island surrounded by very hostile neighbors: Syria to the northeast, Lebanon to the north, Egypt to the south, and Palestinians within its own borders. Even Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has made efforts to stir up terrorist acts by making payments to the families of "martyrs" in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Israel in essence, has only has the United States and Great Britain as allies. The U.
S. , under the new Bush Administration has been relatively quiet on policy towards the conflict. Israel's policy can be summarized by the words and actions following recent Palestinian terrorist acts as described in the April 16 Washington Post (Suicide Bomb at Bus Stop Kills 1 Israeli, Injures 40. Williams, D. ), "Clearly terror is continuing against Israel emanating from areas under the control of Arafat, " said Raanan Gibson, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "I'm not saying he gave the order, but he's head of the Palestinian Authority, he's the representative. It leaves us no choice but to take the necessary action. " Such comments customarily presage a military assault on Palestinian territory. " Very small steps have been taken to ending the conflict.
As reported in the April 5, 2001 New York Times (Expectations Low as Israeli-Palestinian Talks Get Under Way. Sontag, D. ), "While Israeli troops and Palestinian militants exchanged mortar fire in the Gaza Strip today, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres held talks in Athens with senior Palestinian officials in an effort to brake the escalation of hostilities. On both sides, expectations were low that the security talks would be successful. Talks two weeks ago between the same two senior officials failed. " The words from the peace process are not ones that filled experts and analysts with anything but a sense of impending escalation of the conflict. Some important questions needing to be asked are, Is the U.
S. willing to support Israel at the risk of another oil embargo similar to the one in 1973? Would the U. S.
and Great Britain back Israel in the advent of furthering hostilities? Will the Palestinians settle for anything less than a sovereign state on all of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem? What concessions, if any, will the Sharon led Israel be willing to make? Finally and most the simple, Is the worst yet to come?
Perhaps these questions are unanswerable in regard to the situation, but they are nonetheless relevant. Whatever perspective, biases, or view the crisis is looked at from; it is almost a certainty amongst all experts and analysts that Israeli/Arab relations face, at best, a tumultuous future. Bibliography: Associated Press ASIA (2001, April 9) Arafat tones down message. The Washington Post, World Section, pp. 17. Editorial. (2000, July 26). This time, No Camp David Accords.
The Chicago-Tribune, from: web Hockstader, L. (2001, March 1) To Israelis, violence becoming untenable. The Washington Post, World Section, pp. 16. Lavie, M. (2001, March 28). Israelis shell Palestinian cities. The Washington Post, World Section, pp. 16. Lavie, M. (2001, April 13).
Sharon might ok a Palestinian State. The Washington Post, pp. 17. Rees, M. (2001, April 9). Fuel for the Fire.
Time Magazine, from: web Rees, M. (2001, April 16). In Search of Peace, Sharon Raises the Stakes. Time Magazine, from: web Sontag, D. (2001, April 5). Expectations Low as Israeli-Palestinian Talks Get Under Way. The New York Times Online, from: web Williams, D. (2001, April 16).
Suicide Bomb at Bus Stop Kills 1 Israeli Injures 40. The Washington Post, world section, pp. 16. Williams, D. (2001, April 3). Two Bombs in Jerusalem Wound 30. The Washington Post, World Section, pp. 17.
Free research essays on topics related to: gaza strip, terrorist acts, west bank, terrorist actions, israeli palestinian
Research essay sample on Israeli Palestinian Terrorist Acts
