“The Problem is Palestinian Rejectionism,” by Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner and “Israel’s Bunker Mentality,” by Ronald Krebs attempt to dissect and solve one of the most complex geopolitical conflicts in recent human history, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner discuss that the one thing that’s stopping this conflict from being resolved is Palestinian reluctance to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. On the other hand, Ronald Krebs argues that it’s in Israel’s best interest to resolve the conflict, because Israel’s occupation is damaging domestic affairs and stagnating Israel’s progress. I argue that not only is it in the best interest of both states to resolve the conflict, but that one can’t solely
…show more content…
Hamas, an extremist organization in Gaza, has severely harmed the Palestinian cause for statehood. Hamas isn’t shy of its hate towards Israelis and has committed terrorist acts over the years. I contend that if the Palestinian National Authority is truly committed to ending the conflict, it must first denounce the actions and beliefs of Hamas. Both Israel and Palestine would benefit from such a move. For one, Israel wouldn’t need to worry so much about its security during negotiations, but it will also be confident that Palestine’s intentions are well and truly peaceful. Denouncing the Hamas would not only facilitate negotiations, but the Palestinian National Authority would serve as the sole and central authority of the Palestinian state. I also maintain that the reduced risk of violence would allow both sides to exercise a bit more flexibility at the negotiating table. Israel, just like Palestine, has got some work to do. Israel is nonchalantly ignoring any and all orders to stop its settlement program, but it’s contributing to its hypocrisy in the process. Israel continually insists that Palestine recognize its existence and its borders, but Israel continues to build beyond 1967 lines. Even during the Oslo Accords, Israel made it clear that it would go on with its settlement program. At the 2000 Camp David Summit, …show more content…
Both Israel and Palestine have to become more cooperative, because not only are some of their demands unrealistic, but also because it’s in their best interest to do so. Since 1948, this conflict has inhibited Palestine’s ability to progress. Conflict resolution would allow Palestine to focus its energies to other pressing matters as it will finally be able to function as an independent state. The conflict, as Ronald Krebs discusses, has also been detrimental to Israel. This conflict of occupation has ignited an ethnoreligious movement in the nation. As a result, Arab-Israeli citizens continually face discrimination in health care, education, housing and employment. Furthermore, the conflict has empowered the ultra-Orthodox haredim. As the occupation continues, ethnoreligious sentiment continues to grow in support of these haredim. Consequently, in order to form a coalition government, majority parties like the Likud comply with the Haredi’s request for subsidies and special privileges like exemption from the military. This rent-seeking behavior causes the state to raise taxes in order to compensate for such requests. High taxes, as Krebs suggests, causes educated, secular Israelis to flee the country and a brain drain ensues. I agree with Krebs that conflict resolution is best for Israel, because the resolution will spell the end of extreme ethnoreligious movement
Hamas, an extremist organization in Gaza, has severely harmed the Palestinian cause for statehood. Hamas isn’t shy of its hate towards Israelis and has committed terrorist acts over the years. I contend that if the Palestinian National Authority is truly committed to ending the conflict, it must first denounce the actions and beliefs of Hamas. Both Israel and Palestine would benefit from such a move. For one, Israel wouldn’t need to worry so much about its security during negotiations, but it will also be confident that Palestine’s intentions are well and truly peaceful. Denouncing the Hamas would not only facilitate negotiations, but the Palestinian National Authority would serve as the sole and central authority of the Palestinian state. I also maintain that the reduced risk of violence would allow both sides to exercise a bit more flexibility at the negotiating table. Israel, just like Palestine, has got some work to do. Israel is nonchalantly ignoring any and all orders to stop its settlement program, but it’s contributing to its hypocrisy in the process. Israel continually insists that Palestine recognize its existence and its borders, but Israel continues to build beyond 1967 lines. Even during the Oslo Accords, Israel made it clear that it would go on with its settlement program. At the 2000 Camp David Summit, …show more content…
Both Israel and Palestine have to become more cooperative, because not only are some of their demands unrealistic, but also because it’s in their best interest to do so. Since 1948, this conflict has inhibited Palestine’s ability to progress. Conflict resolution would allow Palestine to focus its energies to other pressing matters as it will finally be able to function as an independent state. The conflict, as Ronald Krebs discusses, has also been detrimental to Israel. This conflict of occupation has ignited an ethnoreligious movement in the nation. As a result, Arab-Israeli citizens continually face discrimination in health care, education, housing and employment. Furthermore, the conflict has empowered the ultra-Orthodox haredim. As the occupation continues, ethnoreligious sentiment continues to grow in support of these haredim. Consequently, in order to form a coalition government, majority parties like the Likud comply with the Haredi’s request for subsidies and special privileges like exemption from the military. This rent-seeking behavior causes the state to raise taxes in order to compensate for such requests. High taxes, as Krebs suggests, causes educated, secular Israelis to flee the country and a brain drain ensues. I agree with Krebs that conflict resolution is best for Israel, because the resolution will spell the end of extreme ethnoreligious movement