HTS 2041: The Modern Middle East

Home » Uncategorized » Israel and Palestine: Have recent developments pushed the two parties farther apart or is peace still possible?

Israel and Palestine: Have recent developments pushed the two parties farther apart or is peace still possible?

Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, anger and discontent has been a part of the daily lives of the Israeli and Palestinian people. Palestine was not even recognized as a state by the United Nations until earlier this year when a vote took place within the UN and Palestine was granted the status of a non-member Observer State – a major step forward for the creation of a Palestinian state, if in name only.

Israel was established three years after the end of World War II as a haven for the millions of displaced Jews after the horror of the Holocaust. The land chosen for the state of Israel was given by the British who, at the time, had control over the Palestinian territory with a decision to give over half of that land to Israel. Israelis have been gradually taking over more and more land belonging to Palestine by simply building and moving into homes – areas known as settlements.

The continued creation of settlements by Israel in Palestinian territory has only added to the disgruntlement associated with the partitioning of Palestine in order to create Israel. The main religions of these two groups, Islam and Judaism, both have highly sacred sites in the city of Jerusalem. This juxtaposition of holy sites has merely added to the conflict between the two groups as both lay claim to the city and neither will loosen their grip, even for the sake of peace. The disagreement over ownership of the city of Jerusalem and the settlement of Israeli citizens in Palestinian territory are just two of the many points of contention in this long-running saga.

Will it be possible for these two states to one day exist peacefully, or will one party outlast or outmaneuver the other to ultimately take control of the territory as a whole? This question has lingered since the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian coexistence with a compromise seemingly unattainable, especially in light of the continuing violence in the area and the control Israel exerts over Palestine and the Palestinian Authority.

The recent outcome of the United Nations vote proclaiming Palestine as a state seems to have greatly increased the confidence of its leaders – especially on the diplomatic front. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has “renamed” the territory the “State of Palestine” with conflicting sources from the Associated Press and Aljazeera claiming that he may or may not call for new passports, ID cards and the like as well as requesting all former Palestinian Authority diplomats to refer to it as the “State of Palestine” in countries around the world, including those countries that voted against the recognition. Many wonder if there will be serious backlash from Israel on this issue, for the most part however Israel seems to have identified this as merely a weak attempt at sovereignty with no real action substantiating the diplomatic move. In reaction to the “renaming:”

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev dismissed the name change as pointless but declined comment on whether Israel would retaliate in any way. “Instead of looking for gimmicks, Palestinians should negotiate with Israel to bring about the end of the conflict,” he said. “That will lead to a situation of two states for two peoples.”

This acknowledgment from the global community seems to have shifted the focus a bit from reaching a compromise between the two states to the diplomatic maneuvering of Palestine in its bid to be taken seriously as an actor on the world stage and to simply become autonomous. The name change may have irked Israel, but they are doing quite a good job of making sure that, in the public eye, their disdain for Palestine remains on an even keel in order to prevent themselves from potentially being seen as reactionary in such a delicate situation.

Will this UN declaration substantially affect the people of Israel and Palestinian, or is this merely posturing by two states that are incapable of solving their problems on their own? Should Abbas continue pushing the diplomatic angle or could that potentially make the situation worse for the individual citizens of Palestine on a day-to-day basis? The list of questions could go on ad infinitum, but where and how does one begin to tackle such a massive and deeply rooted issue without running into the roadblocks facing world leaders today?

– Katelyn Hollingsworth

The articles can be found here: Associated Press, Aljazeera, BBC News, and Foreign Policy.

Advertisements

28 Comments

  1. I wish I was taught more about this issue while growing up, but from what I’ve researched from outside readings and from hearing other people’s opinions, I will argue that this new Palestinian “State” is only the beginning of Palestinian Territories trying to reclaim back their land. Like what Katelyn Hollingsworth said, both sides share “highly sacred sites in the city of Jerusalem.” I believe as long as both sides exist, there will always be conflict between them. I base this argument from what I’ve heard from my relatives in Iran and from excerpts in this link:

    http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/middle_east.htm

    From the Muslim Bible Prophecy: “They have said, ‘Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more’ (Ps 83.4)

    From the Jewish Bible: ‘”You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen” … And what nation on the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people and to make a name for Himself, and to do a great thing for You and awesome things for Your land …’ (Isa 43.10)(2 Sam 7.23)

    As I have learned, the Muslims want Israel gone, but Israel is God’s chosen land for the Jews. I just don’t see an end to this conflict.

    -Chris Khosravi

  2. jkipp3 says:

    According to studies by Hebrew University, support for a two-state situation have increased from 47% in 2003 to 58% in 2011 amongst Israelis, and 39% to 50% amongst Palestinians. Hopefully these new majorities will put their votes to work soon.

  3. marymsherman says:

    I think this is a very good summation of one facet of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The situation is even further complicated by the presence and power of Hamas in the Palestinian region. As an American, we usually hear a strongly pro-Israel slant in media, but I like how Katelyn broadened her search to international resources to give a more informational and unbiased claim.
    -Mary Sherman

  4. kjohnson626 says:

    One of the only ways to solve the crisis is with the creation of two states and evolving Jerusalem into a truly neutral city. Unfortunately, neither the Israeli government or the leaders of the Palestine Authority seem to truly invest much stock into that idea, even thought recent polls from citizens show increasing support of a 2-state solution. Both authorities need to show more willingness to compromise if these people are ever going to live in peace. A stronger diplomatic front on the Palestinian side is a step forward, but only with acknowledgement and cooperation with the Israeli government; otherwise it could end up being a complete disaster. In all, all groups from governmental to militant need to begin to accept that working together to create a solution is the only way to avoid more bloodshed and achieve peace.

  5. phillipscheng says:

    While it may be possible for a solution to be brokered by making Jerusalem into a neutral city there remains the problem of the administrative duties of the city. Will Jerusalem become a city such as the Vatican with its own administrative powers? Or will Jerusalem have to be administered by a neutral third party? I doubt few third parties will want to have administrative duties of such a hotly contested area.

    I also see problems with the maintenance of peace within the neutral city, what laws will be in effect, what will those laws be based on? Will those who commit crimes be tried in Jerusalem or will they be shipped back to their home country? Imagine a crime committed by a Palestinian citizen against an Israeli citizen. Once the Palestinian citizen is returned to Palestine imagine he is acquitted and released? What will the Israeli reaction be?

  6. akranc3 says:

    The UN vote to make Palestine a non-member Observer State was a good move. However, the Palestinian Authority should not let this go to its head. Any actual attempts at gaining sovereignty and becoming a true state will most likely be shot down by the UN. In regards to Israelis encroaching on Palestinian land, major problems would occur down the road if Palestine were to implement passports and ID cards for its citizens. Israelis would be deported or forcibly removed from Palestinian soil. If not done peacefully, Israeli blood will be spilled and their government would then have a legitimate reason to retaliate.

  7. ojanus3 says:

    My knowledge on this subject is very limited, but I think this blog post has done a good job explaining the surface of the issue. To me it seems up until this point the fighting has just been a constant tug of war. I want to learn more about the approaches to solving this issue and am wondering if something extreme will have to be the solution. It is interesting that Israel officials have simply chosen to ignore the declaration as a state. Will this prove to be in their favor to not seem reactionary or will it backfire?

  8. mjuren3 says:

    I think the root of the problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from which stems all the other issues discussed above, is the fact that few if any of the leaders on either side appear to really desire a peaceful two-state solution. From my perspective, it seems that both sides’ governments are trying to get a stranglehold on the other and as Katelyn said, “outlast or outmaneuver the other to ultimately take control of the territory as a whole.” Unfortunately who ends up suffering from this uncompromising struggle are the civilians who get caught in the middle of the power play.

    For example, according to the Huffington Post these are the casualties that occurred from just over a week of conflict late last year.

    “The eight days of fighting killed 161 Palestinians, including 71 civilians. Six Israelis, two soldiers and four civilians, were killed and dozens others wounded by rockets fired into residential neighborhoods.”

    Each side has such a deeply rooted distrust and loathing for the other as a result of years of violence and breaches of confidence that I believe they will never be able to set aside their differences and work together to make real progress towards a peaceful two-state solution unless they can do one of the hardest things for humanity: forgive, forget, and move on.

  9. kolson23 says:

    According to some the fact that Palestine is now recognized as an Observer State has caused a response in Israel. There is some struggle over a section of land called E1, an area that is adjacent to East Jerusalem. Israel has been trying to construct homes in the area for years, but have been met with resistance in the past and have not gotten anywhere. However, Israel recently said it would move forward with the project regardless. It is believed “Israel announced its intention as a countermeasure after the United Nations General Assembly voted in November to upgrade the Palestinians’ status to that of a nonmember observer state.” (ISABEL KERSHNER NY Times). This in turn was met with Palestinian protest and Israeli military removal of protesters. Here are a few links.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/world/middleeast/israeli-police-evict-palestinian-protesters-from-e-1.html?_r=0

    http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-state-efforts-undermined-by-israel

    One only wonders how long these small conflicts in this large disagreement will go on. I too agree that the the creation of two independent states may be a good solution to the conflict. Hopefully in the near future they can resolve their issues.

  10. flambert3 says:

    I agree that they should truly make this a neutral city. There is so much religious significance of this region to all religions including Christianity. Maybe an idea would be to make Jerusalem its own city state like Vatican City but try to keep it religiously neutral as a nation moment since most of the worlds religion types sees this as an important religious region. I know its easier said than done but being open to the world for exploration and religious connection would be a great accomplishment.

    -Frederick Lambert

  11. The UN declaration is obviously indicative of a changing international opinion of the Palestinian territory. I think that in our lifetime Palestine will be internationally recognized as a definitive state. Israel’s aggressive foreign policy and perceived disproportionately violent attacks on Palestine have contributed to an overall negative view of Israel by other countries. I don’t know a huge amount on the history of the Muslim and Jewish faith–it’s why I’m taking this class–but it seems that the this conflict is more new, stemming back from the Zionist movement and and could be solved eventually, with the cooperation of leaders on both sides, although it does seem that Palestine’s and Israel’s current leaders may not be up for the challenge.

  12. sstephenson3 says:

    I believe that this post makes some very good points about the Israeli/Palestine conflict currently going on in and around Jerusalem and raises an interesting question as to the fate of the region. The question being: Is there a peaceful solution that can be achieved where Israel and Palestine share the land, the city of Jerusalem, and the holy sites therein, or is the region destined for bloody conflict with one side conquering the other? Honestly, I believe the latter is the result that will happen, due to the fact that no matter how many times the Israelis defeat and outmaneuver the Palestinians and their Muslim allies, the Muslim world has shown historically that it will never stop coming after their third most holy city and any peace sought will only be a temporary respite while they regroup and recover their strength for another attempt.
    -Stan Stephenson

  13. sstephenson3 says:

    It is important to note that in my previous post, I am referring to the ancient, medieval history of the region. In fact, back to the first Crusades, the time of King Baldwin, and the victories of Saladin. In the previous section of this course, we covered this subject rather extensively, and if there is anything that I took away from the articles we read and talked about, as well as the movie “Kingdom of Heaven”, it is this: Saladin, as well as the rest of the Muslim world at the time, was very much focused on taking back the city of Jerusalem from foreign influence, almost to the point of obsession. In my experience, this resistance to foreign, by which I mean non-Muslim, control and influence of any region in the Muslim world, much less one of the most holy and revered cities in their religion and culture, has changed very little. It is for this reason that I believe that a conflict is only a matter of time here and the Muslim world will win this conflict, simply by the fact that they surround and, for the most part, dominate the proportion of the populace there. In short, time and history seem to be on the side of the Palestinians here, even if the current situation seems to favor the Israelis and their need to reach a peaceful solution.
    -Stan Stephenson

  14. tnatoli3 says:

    I never realized how unaware of this situation I really was. The problem with declaring this land as a haven for the Jews after the holocaust is that we (the ally nations from WWII) are heavily rooted in solving this problem. Though the British had control over Palestine, it was still their land that was given away. I hope that this conflict can be solved between Israel and Palestine without outside information, but the backing of Israel through powerful nations such as the United States makes this difficult for both states to come to an agreement.

  15. mcharles6 says:

    I have no opinion on whether or not Palestine should be allowed to form its own sovereign, separate state. I do not think that this is the biggest issue. Israel and Palestine will always be in conflict, primarily because of Jerusalem. It has been pointed out both in this post and previous comments that both the Islamic Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis lay claim to the city, due to the fact that Jerusalem is of great religious importance to each group. I believe that the Jews are the rightful “owners” of Jerusalem, just as God promised them when He made a covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). The Jews are God’s chosen people, and He will not break His covenant promise to them, meaning the land belongs to them, and though many will try to destroy the name of Israel (Psalm 83), no nation will be able to stand against them (Deuteronomy 11:25).
    -Marion Charles

  16. kledbetter6 says:

    The idea of Jerusalem becoming a city-state, bordered by both an Israeli and a Palestinian state, occurred to me as well, though I don’t see this being a viable option, mainly due to administrative issues. Furthermore, with these two states bordering it, I don’t think it would be long until one state attempted to reclaim Jerusalem. Hopefully some compromise will be reached that will be tolerable to both parties, so that bloodshed in this region will cease. However, with the continued use of violence instead of diplomacy (the rocket bombardments of last November come to mind), it is doubtful that this will happen any time soon.

  17. shaimsn says:

    Hi Katelyn. My name is Shai. I have a couple of things to say about your article that you might not know of. I’ll go paragraph by paragraph to make it as organized as possible. And excuse me in advance for my English if it’s not the best one.

    (P 1) “Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, anger and discontent has been a part of the daily lives of the Israeli and Palestinian people”. Believe me, I’ve been to Israel and most of the days are not a tragedy over there. But these are opinions, not facts. So let’s talk about facts.
    (P 1 and 2) The British ruled over the Mandate of Palestine, which in today’s world are the lands of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jordan (Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan regions.) Arabs and Jews lived in these territories. The League of Nations in 1922 recognized the TransJordan region as a state under the British Mandate (Jordan was created), giving the Arabs 3/4 of the land of the Mandate of Palestine. After this, in 1947, the UN proposed a Partition Plan for the remaining land of the Mandate, proposing the creation of a Jewish state and another Arab state. This partition plan assigned about 55% of the lands to the Jews and 45% to the Arabs. We’re all good with numbers here, so let me tell you that over 60% of the land out of this 55% assigned to the Jews was desert lands. The 45% assigned to Arabs were the fertile grounds of the region. Now tell me if you still think that this “over half of that land” argument seems legit.

    (P 2) The British had control over the Palestine region, not the Palestinian territories. Two very different things.

    About the settlements: So after this Partition Plan was proposed, the Jews prepared everything to declare the independence of Israel. In May 14th 1948 they did. The DAY after this happened, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq started a war against Israel. All these Arab states told the Arabs who lived in the CisJordan region (today’s Israel – West Bank – Gaza) to leave those territories with their families and to go to Jordan and Egypt because their armies were going to “push the Jews into the sea” and then give them all of the CisJordan region to them after doing this – including the cities that the Jews had built already. Sadly for them, Israel miraculously survived this war.
    This war lead to these boundaries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/1949_armistice_line_300.gif
    The Jordans had occupied and controled the West Bank and the Egyptians occupied Gaza. This stayed constant for about 20 years, in 1967. During these 20 years, NOBODY talked about the “Palestinian national identity” or Palestinian independence. They were Arabs who lived under the rule of Jordan and Egypt. Some of them disappointed because they weren’t able to take over Israel.
    The Palestinian identity appeared in 1967, when these already occupied territories were re-occupied by Israelis. By the way, it was not like Israel wanted to take control of these territories and started a war because of this. Egypt, Jordan and Syria (with the help of 8 other countries) got together again and wanted to extinguish Israel. This time, Israel was more prepared, and they took control over the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, with the Arab coalition failing again. Yes, Israel took control of the land. But what should be expected? Say, all your neighbor countries attack you, and for some reason, you end up victorious. Would you return the land that you gained and tell your enemies: “It was a fair game. Here you go, here’s your land back. Let’s do it again sometime.” ? Plus, it is know that Israel is not looking for land; they returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, a valuable territory filled with oil, seeking peace. They recently returned the Gaza Strip, unilaterally, as well. They are looking for prosperity and recognition (which none of its neighboring countries do – they don’t publicly accept that Israel is a Jewish state).

    Why would this Palestinian nationalism appear in 1967 and not appear in 1948 ?
    This question is a good one. I say we talk about it in class.

    (P 3) Quick note about your religion reference: Over 3000 years ago, King David declared Jerusalem as the capital of the Reign of Israel. Since then, it has been the Holiest city for Jews. The Sacred Temple was built there.
    Mohammed was born 1400 years ago. And, the reason why Jerusalem is the 3rd Holiest Place for Islam (third, not the first) is because of an interpretation of a passage of the Quran where Mohammed had a dream about a city, interpreted to be Jerusalem.

    (P 3) I understand that the settlements nowadays are causing “disgruntlement”, as you said, between these two groups. But you made it seem as if this was the only cause of the conflict. I want you to know that thousands of Israelis have suffered (died and been mutilated) during the last 60 years because of terrorist attacks in coffee houses, elementary schools, malls, pizza places, clubs, hotels, markets, bus stations, among (sadly) many others. These terrorist attacks were commanded back then by the PLO, yes, the PLO, Al-Fattah, and more recently, Hammas.

    (P 5) Last thing I wanna say Kaitlyn. “Will it be possible for these two states to one day exist peacefully,” Yes, it is possible. Israeli leaders have reiterated continuously the right of the Palestinian people to have their own country. On the other hand, the Palestinian leaders have not recognized the right of the Jewish people to have Israel as its state. Once Palestinian leaders recognize this right, Israel will be the first country to support the development of a Palestinian state.

    Shai Messingher

  18. mitch7991 says:

    The interesting thing about this conflict is that the two opposing sides don’t have the same basis for their argument. I believe that it is more of a religious issue for Israel, whereas for the Palestinians, it’s just a matter of suddenly being kicked out of a land they had occupied during Israel’s absence. Though, I don’t think Israel is going to back down, especially concerning their Holy City of Jerusalem. According to the ideology of Judaism and the history of the Jewish people, the city of Jerusalem was ordained by God to be their holy city, the city that God Himself would dwell in in the Temple built by Solomon.

  19. nathanieljonesenglish1102 says:

    A few years ago, I actually met a friend online that lives in Israel. This conflict got incredibly real to me when we were playing a game and he mentioned that something had just exploded outside his house. I started paying more attention to this conflict after that, and it seems to me that neither side has any intentions of backing off anytime soon. The whole conflict could end up becoming even uglier within the next few years, since I’m starting to doubt that either side will find a suitable compromise.

  20. chai164 says:

    All I could think of while reading this was the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. It has been more than sixty years since the division of India and Pakistan and there is still running tension between the two countries over Kashmir. This could have been avoided if the matter was settled more intelligently during partition.

    With this in mind, I feel like Palestine and Israel won’t be able to live in peace under one nation state. Even if the Palestinians are silenced now and forced into a compromise, the frustration will only boil up again with time. There needs to be more of a focus on the effect this partition will have on the individual Palestinian and the individual Israeli. I feel like right now, diplomacy and the need to maintain peace should not cause more harm than good at the grass root level.

  21. religion317 says:

    Nice post, and great conversation. We will definitely talk about this more in class when we deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While religion plays a role certainly, we will want to interrogate the claim that this is fundamentally a religious dispute against the rival claim that it is fundamentally a dispute about land and nationalistic claims. For example, we can see claims for national identity among Palestinians and Israelis as early as the ‘Great Revolt’ of 1936, but very little religious rhetoric appears in that conflict. Our goal here is not to adjudicate this dispute, but to understand its history, and I think we’re off to a good start.

  22. Jeffrey Lester says:

    I to think this is an interesting topic. The conflict between the two groups has been a subject of news channels for as long I aI can remember. Sadly, I never took the time to research the matter and was never taught much about the subject in high school. To me it has always seemed to be one of those issues that having an opinion on the matter will only lead disagreeing with someone else. I guess you could say that this is a result of how highly politicized the news and world leaders have made the issue. Religious opinions aside, it seems to me that Palestine has every right to establish their land as a state, and Israel should respect that. To bad we don’t live in a world where they could just get along and share their respective sacred sites.

  23. I have different opinion about the suggestion stated above that Jerusalem can be made to a neutral city. From my point of view, the conflict between Palestine and Israel would not be solve by this suggestion, because their main point is that they have to own the land by themselves according to their religions. It does not matter if the two evolved states are whom, as long as Judaism and Muslim still exist, the ownership of Jerusalem will not be solved.
    However, as many political and historical scholars indicate, the true conflict is somehow under the veil of religion. Especially a political Realist will say, that all the conflicts are competition between power. In this case, as Realist would say, that the main goal of both Israel and Palestine is to expand their power by owning the Holy City Jerusalem in order to not only have advantage in gathering religious support, but also have a better spot on map. Furthermore, other participants will also somewhat gain power from their plays in this conflict.
    Shitian Liu

  24. By the way, it is weird that I learnt Palestine as a state years ago in China, and most of the maps printed in China have labeled Palestine as a state owning Jerusalem for many years as I can remember. Just a side thought.

  25. ccostes says:

    To respond to a few different points brought up in the post and in the comments this is certainly a complex issue with no clear resolution. Part of the reason I think it has become such a contentious issue is that, like in many disputes, both sides of the argument believe themselves to be in the right. While there are certainly arguments to be made for each, this is my take on the situation.

    The modern Jewish state of Israel as we know it today came to be primarily as a result of The British Mandate. This was part of a larger agreement between member countries in the League of Nations that addressed what to do with land formerly held by the Ottoman Empire after they were defeated in the First World War. As a result, the land east of the Jordan River (referred to as Palestine) was placed under direct British administration. From this time until the end of World War II, a large influx of Jewish people came to Palestine and by this time they made up about 33% of the population. It was around this time that the Jewish people began armed resistance to British rule and in 1947 the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine. The newly formed United Nations now had to decide what to do with this land that suddenly had no government. The decision was made to create independent Jewish and Arab states along with an independent city of Jerusalem to be administered by a “International Trusteeship System.” This plan was accepted by representatives of the Jewish people, but rejected by the Arab League and the Arab Higher Council of Palestine. What happens next seems to be where the modern Arab-Israeli conflict stems from. A period of civil war broke out in Palestine, starting small with a cycle of murders and reprisals, but with no authority to stop the cycle of violence it escalated into all-out war. In 1948 the head of the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Given this brief history I think it can be seen that there really isn’t any right side to the issue. The situation ended up with two groups of people that each identified as independent communities occupying an ungoverned land, each wanting it for themselves. The breakdown of peaceful negotiations into civil war seems to be due primarily to the chaos caused by the British government’s loss of control of the region. This created a situation in which each group felt threatened by the other and decided that they needed to take action themselves rather than give peaceful negotiations a chance. As in any conflict, each blames the other as the antagonist but in this situation I don’t think you can blame either group for their actions. It is because of these tumultuous beginnings that the issue has remained so contentious for so long.

  26. jdowling6 says:

    In my humble opinion I think that the name change is a sign that Palestine is well on it’s way to attaining sovereignty, but is too early to do so. In addition to angering Israel by planning to change the name on passports and ID’s, Israel will now have someone to hold responsible for the rocket attacks that have been stemming from the Palestinian region targeting the Gaza strip since 2001. Plans for a two-state solution now are only further postponed, since Abbas has this new ‘anvil over the head’ that Israel can drop at any time if and when confrontation strikes. Yet I agree with Sai’s last point that Palestine becoming a state definitely is possible (and Israel would be the first country to support the development), but I disagree with Trisha that said bilateral peace agreements will not be in our lifetime since there are more tangled knots here that we probably do not even know of, not including the acts of terrorism plaguing the Gaza strip.

  27. tdkohlbeck says:

    Perhaps the conflict between these two peoples may eventually boil down to a generational issue? I’m not sure what internet access is like in Israel or Palestine, but I’d be interested to hear what the young people have to say about this conflict. Would greater access to information sway both populations one way or another?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: