The Israeli struggle for independence and security has been underwritten by United States and European powers for over 50 years. Since its inception and recognition. The Israeli government has had its military and economy established, subsidized and protected by the US and EU. The state of Israel have a great concern when it comes to Independence, it enjoyed absolute solidarity with the West until recent tension over when to attack Iran nuclear program. Policy that has been since World War I, when the British government issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, supporting the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Jews immigrated to Palestine in even greater numbers during the Mandate period, and clashes between Arabs and Jews and between both groups and the British increased (Paton, 1981). Following World War II, the plight of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust gave the demand for a Jewish home added poignancy and urgency. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly developed a partition plan (Resolution 181) to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and some surrounding areas proposed to be under U.N. trusteeship.
Peace and democracy for Israel and Palestine are just two sides of the same coin, it has often been said. In a speech before the British parliament in June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy. He then, perhaps unaware of the contrast, announced a "crusade for freedom" and a "campaign for democratic development." There are many reasons why Israel should not be forced to sign, “Land for Peace”. History has shown that the Palestinian Authority contrary to popular belief has not been a willing partner (Paton, 1981). Mahmoud Abbas attempted to get the UN to unitarily declare a Palestinian State bypassing any all legitimate negotiations and undermining the very nature of the process. Palestinians would argue “what choice do we have if the Israel continues to expand settlements. Though this may controversial it is legal and Israel’s’ right to do within their sovereign borders.
Land for Peace Negations
PM Abbas suspended negotiations for nine months stalling any and all momentum of talks only to show up in the tenth month only to boycott talks indefinitely. He reasoning is that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel agrees in “advance” to give up land and return to the 1967 borders specifically the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (Yapp, 1987). This is condescending and unrealistic not to mention it violates the previous. The next reason the Israeli’s should not be forced to sign a “land for peace” is the issue of “ right of return”. The issue of “right to return” would demographically destroy the only Jewish state by exchanging the Israeli population with the Palestinian population. The Palestinian Authority has been quoted as saying they do not recognize a Jewish State.
In year 2000 at Camp David Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian State on the West Bank and in Gaza including a divided Jerusalem. Arafat refused without a counter offer and instead signed off on terror stack that resulted in the murder of 1,000 Israelis. In 2001 President Clinton offered an even better deal and Yasser Arafat Refused.
In 2008 the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to PM Abbas 97% of the West Bank with land swaps, statehood, the division of Jerusalem with Muslim portions serving as the new capital which included the Western Wall and Abbas rejected the offer. The Palestinians have shown a tendency to be overwhelming comfortable with signing interim deals such as framework agreements, and cease fires like the 1949 armistice, Oslo, Annapolis, but nothing long term seems to be feasible. The premise of Land for Peace produced the Israeli-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israeli-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three time and a have been refused on all accounts.
In conclusion the Palestinian quest for “Self Determination can be much like Peace resembles a political ideology more so than a form of practical governance. What the People of the Middle East want more than Democracy is “Self Determination and Sovereignty from the dominates states i.e. US, Russia, China, EU. .When States or Countries use the word “free” or “sovereign” they truly are referring to representative commonwealths (Yapp, 1987). We often hear the words coupled with zingy terms such as “Free Market societies ” and “ representative elections The true or “pure sovereignty “ exist only in the developed world from the 1950’s at the twilight of the Cold War to 1989 at the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union politicians have use the word to describe or label the ideology of Jeffersonian democracies in comparison of the communist ideology of post World War II Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Soviet Union and China. Much of the ongoing violence in the Middle East is related to aborted struggles for self-determination and is rooted in the colonial legacy (Paton, 1981). These conflicts are exacerbated by Western powers taking advantage of ethnic and cultural divisions to maintain their influence in the region. Indeed, the region’s ongoing strategic importance and its role as the world’s largest consumer of Western arms exports magnify even local and regional struggles to international importance.