Israel and Palestine Discussion Questions (Page 154)

[Mr. J.]

1. What role did Zionism and the Balfour Declaration play in the
British government's decision to separate the area into 2 separate,
autonomous regions in 1948?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the present-day proposed 2-state
solution for the region, and what role do you think the United States
should play in the negotiations? Please be specific and use your own
words!

[Becky Maz]

Zionism and the Balfour Declaration both played a major role in the
British government's decision to separate the area known as Palestine
into two separate regions in 1948. Zionism, or the Zionest movement,
is defined as the idea that Jewish people should settle in the area
which is now called Palestine because it is the biblical homeland of
the Jewish people. The Balfour Declaration states that Israel, which
was once part of Palestine, is the national land or home of the Jewish
people. This was created as a safe haven for the Jewish population
after World War 2. Unfortunately that is not what happened.
I disagree with the present-day proposed 2 state solution for the
region. Unfortunately, I feel that this conflict whose roots began
when Abraham was born is not one that will be solved if any one
religion claims this area as their homeland, and theirs alone. I feel
that the 2-state solution is a waste of time, because this solution is
unrealistic. Because this area is important to so many religions, to
give it to one religion is wrong. I don't know who thought it would be
a good idea to hand this sacred place for not only Jewish people, but
for Christian and Muslim people as well, over to one of those three
groups. There wouldn't be a problem right now if somebody had thought
about how many people this decision would affect. It would have been
an especially good idea to think about the people living right next to
this land who also believe that it is sacred. If the US plays any role
in the negotiations of this solution, I think they should suggest that
maybe they should reconsider who they gave the land to, and propose
that it be governed as its own state, with a government who would
allow all of the people who feel the need to visit Israel to stay safe
when they are there.

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

Britain's decision to separate Palestine into two separate regions was
largely influenced by zionism and the Balfour Declaration. First,
zionism is basically the idea that Jews should settle in Palestine.
This ideology was born a long time ago, and definitely contributed to
the idea of separating Palestine. The Balfour Declaration itself was
issued by Britain in order to gain Jewish support for its war in
1917. This Declaration stated that Britain was in full support for
the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating
the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish
communities. It was Britain's way of trying to please others. while
still gaining something in return. In 1948 when the Jews procalimed
the independent State of Israel, Britain withdrew and allowed the
Jewish people to have their homeland. This was based on their past
support of the idea and is rooted deeply in zionism, where the ideas
first began. I don't really agree with the proposed idea of a two-
state plan because I really don't think it's going to have that much
of an impact on the way the Arab people in the area view the Jewish
people. Even though the plan itself may sound good on paper, when put
into action, it doesn't seem to take into account the feelings of
those it affects. For instance, having two separate state would
technically give both sides what they wanted, but it doesn't wipe away
the entire history of the fighting and all the hatred and emotion that
causes people to act violently. These feelings are not just going to
disappear over night, plus, because of everything that has occurred
between these two group, fighting could still continue and people
could still exploit the plan and try to gain more land through violent
methods. In general, I do agree with the U.S.'s constant stream of
aid going to Israel, I'm just unsure as to what use it is going to.
Since the main type of aid being sent is military, it is most
definitely possible that it is being used to evict Palestinians from
their homes and other such acts. Because of this, I feel as though
the U.S. should play the mediator role in the negotiations; not taking
sides and not supporting one specific group. As it is, many of the
middle eastern countries look down upon the U.S. and automatically
siding with Israel in such cases would not help at all. Overall, I
believe that a two-state plan would not be as effective as hoped, and
that the U.S. should play the middle man role in dealing with
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

> > words!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joelle Khouri]

The Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration together led to the
separation of Palestine into two regions in 1948. Zionism is a
movement for Jews to settle in Palestine. Zionism caused waves of
immigration and pressure on other authorities to give the Jews their
homeland. The Balfour Declaration, which pretty much supports Zionism,
states Britain’s support for establishing Palestine as a national home
for Jews; however, it also states that the civil and religious rights
of the existing non-Jewish settlements should not be violated.
Together, these two things pressured Britain into giving the Jews a
national home in Palestine.
I do not believe that this conflict will ever be resolved. It is too
deeply rooted for both sides to agree on anything. I do see the merits
of a two state solution, but I think that it has too many potential
problems to be successful. First of all, many Arabs refuse to
recognize Israel as a nation, and even the creation of a separate
state probably won’t change that. Furthermore, even if the separate
states are created, what is to stop the animosity between the Arabs
and the Jews? If the Arabs are not willing to recognize Israel, there
will continue to be violence between the two states. Another problem
is that the proposed Palestinian territory is separated by Israel,
which would pose huge problems for the government.
I think that there does need to be a mediator to attempt to find a
solution; otherwise, nothing will be accomplished. However, I am not
sure that the US is best suited for the job. Because we give so much
aid to Israel, the Arabs will most likely not agree with our
suggestions. I believe that the UN would be better suited to mediate.
On the other hand, I do understand that the desire for the US to be a
part of these negotiations. Therefore, I think that the US should have
a part in the negotiations, if only because they have had some
successes in getting the two groups to talk. However, as far as the
actual talking goes, I think there should definitely be another party,
such as the UN, involved.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emily Lu]

1. When the Jewish were being prosecuted during the late 1800s to the
early 1900s, they formed a movement to promote immigration to
Palestine. This movement supports the idea in the Bible that says
Palestine is the Jews' ancient homeland. The Jews called this movement
Zionism. However, when they arrived in Palestine, they found that it
was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire fought
with Germany and Austria-Hungary against the allies in World War I. In
order to gain Jewish suport in the war, Britain declared the Balfour
Declaration, which gave Britain's support for the Jews to make a home
in Palestine. Once the war was over, Britain kept its word and divided
Palestine into 2 regions, one of them a safe area for the Jews.
2.Yes, I do agree with the present-day proposed 2 state solution. It
provides a state for the Arabs, and a state for the Jews, both states
located in the ancient homeland of Palestine. However, the 2 state
solution has not played out the way it was destined. Instead, Israel
has declared itself an independent country, which is reason enough for
the Arabs to attack. In this, I agree with the Arabs and the
Palestinians. I do not think that Israel can only belong to the Jews,
as it is the Holy Land for many other religions. If the United States
played a role in these negotiations, I would say their duty is to make
sure that Israel stops invading and evicting Palestinians. Even
according to the Balfour Declaration, a portion of Palestine was given
to the Jews as long as they did not violate the rights of the existing
non-Jewish communities. Therefore, I believe the United States should
first have Israel clearly define its boundaries, and then, in time,
negotiate with Israel to give a good portion of their land to the
Arabs and Palestinians, to ensure that these other people may reside
in their Holy Land as well.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Christine]

Zionism is the idea that Jews should settle in Palestine, because
according to these Jewish intellectuals, Palestine was the present day
land that had once been the homeland of the Jews. Their goal was to
make Palestine the land for the Jews once more. The Balfour
Declaration stated that Britain would be in support of Jews making
Palestine their homeland once again. These both played a role in
separating this place into two separate autonomous regions, because
more and more people began to believe that the land of Palestine
belonged, in a sense, to the Jews. It was their homeland and
especially after the oppression of Jews during World War II, many
nations worldwide supported this idea. The Zionist movement lasted for
quite a long time, and spanned from around the 1800s to World War II,
and during this time, many Zionists had already established colonies
in Palestine. Then, when Britain stated their support to make
Palestine a Jewish nation, it was clear that Britain's government
wanted to establish two separate regions in this area.
I agree with the present day proposed two-state solution for the
region, but I do not believe that it could ever be possible, due to
the many problems both parties have with each other and their great
"distaste" for one another. History has shown the difficulties that
the Jews have with the Arabs, and deep divides like those of these two
parties cannot be resolved very easily. The Arabs had been living in
Palestine for so many years and it had become their home- culture had
sprung and they had too, found a place for their people to reside. The
Jews, had been promised this land by God, and according to history,
had been led out of Egypt to return this land that had been where they
had once lived. To the Jews, this is their home as well. Thus, there
can never be a resolution, because the Arabs and the Jews have made
Israel their homeland. It can easily be seen why no real resolutions
have been made. Again and again, these two parties have come together
to try and come up with a way to talk peacefully and negotiate peace
talks, but never has it been successful. The U.S. is taking a huge
role right now to bring these two parties together and to resolve
their deeply rooted divided relationship. At this point, I believe
that the U.S. should take a step back a little from being so involved.
The U.S. has tried so many tactics and each time, it has only
disappointly failed. Only recently, Israel promised they would freeze
their building in the West Bank, so that negotiations could be made
between them and the Palestinians, but just this week, the freeze has
been uplifted, because the situation is just so impossible. Israel and
Palestine have many things to work out and right now, it is important
to just allow them to negotiate slowly. The U.S. should certainly take
a step in helping and repairing the relationship and how they should
divide the land and such, but the U.S. cannot take such involvement.
The attempts are going nowhere. Only time can tell how this situation
will be resolved.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Lindsay Korzekwa]

Since the beginning of their culture and religion, the Jews have
believed that their rightful home is in their holy land of Palestine.
After being exiled countless times, the movement gained momentum once
more during the World Wars. This movement was called Zionism, and was
one of the main influences on the British decision to separate the
area into two separate states in 1948. The other main contributing
factor was the Balfour Declaration, in which the British proclaimed
support for the Jewish movement in return for support during World War
II. After the war was over, the British kept their promise and
declared Israel and Palestine divided. Today, the two-state solution
is being proposed once more, which may seem simple enough, but is in
reality much more complicated than most people realize. For one thing,
Jerusalem is a holy city for three religions: Christianity, Judaism
and Islam. Also, the two main cultures currently living in the area
have conflicting beliefs, and some groups, such as the Hamas, believe
that the Jews should be destroyed. In addition, there are thousands of
Jews currently living in the West Bank, which would become part of
Palestine if the groups agree on the two-state solution. Today, the
United States has been in the middle of these debates, and has been
doing what it can to help them reach a consensus. However, our bias
towards Israel is no secret and I believe that a more neutral party
would be more effective in finding a solution. However, the truth is,
these cultures have been arguing for centuries, and in my opinion it
would take a major change in understanding for these people to be able
to live peacefully together.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Sarah]

1. Zionism was a main cause of the creation of Israel in 1948 due to
its growing prominence amongst Jews. Since the late 1880's Jews had
been fleeing other countries (mainly Russia due to its pogroms) for
Palestine, which was called practical Zionism: attempting to settle
Jews in Palestine. The historical necessity, in many ways, made the
concept more credible. Second was political Zionism, which was
developed by Theodor Herzl: the push for political recognition of the
Jewish claim to a Palestinian homeland. Herzl believed that Jews
"could not assimilate in non-Jewish society" (Zionism and the Jewish
Claim to Palestine, 1). Britain was the first to give this recognition
when it issued Balfour Declaration, which stated its support for the
creation of a Jewish home in Palestine so long as it didn't harm the
existing communities. This declaration was essentially an attempt to
gain Jewish support for its work in World War I, but forced Britain,
when it received a mandate over Palestine after the war, to stick to
its words and help Jews settle in the area. This was a slippery
downhill slope, and especially after the Holocaust, the number of
Jewish settlers in Palestine was too large to ignore, and the UN
separated it into two autonomous regions.
2. I believe that a two-state solution is the only possible solution
at this point, and needs to be carried out as soon as possible. The
disagreement between the Palestinians and Israelis is far too strong
for them to coexist peacefully. Additionally, now that Hamas has made
tentative mention of recognizing Israel's existence, success is more
likely, so it is time to act. The main issue I see with a the talks
occuring right now is the disagreement over the Jewish settlements
that were recently placed under a moratorium. I personally believe
that these need to stop immediately. Israel does not have the right to
step in and take land away from a region separate from itself,
especially after it took so much land away in its initial creation. It
is not the only overcrowded country in the world, and talk of Israel
needing the settlements for its growth echos Hitler's famous theory of
the pure race and its need for expansion. Therefore, the US needs to
do everything in its power to convince Israel to stop the settlements.
If we could do so without selling them fighter jets, so much the
better, but for now it seems to be the only way to the necessary two-
state solution.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[k.Borkovitz]

1. In 1948, the British government decided to separate the region
Palestine into two separate, autonomous regions. Two major factors
that were involved in this choice were Zionism and the Balfour
Declaration. Zionism is the notion that the Jews should settle in
Palestine. According to their religious history, Palestine is the
Jews’ ancient homeland, and they felt entitled to live their because
of this. The Balfour Declaration stated Britain’s support of the Jews’
Zionist movement. It declared that Palestine would be their national
home, “without violating the civil and religious rights of the
existing non-Jewish communities.” This declaration was in order to
gain Jewish support for its war efforts. This declaration, which was
formed around the notion of Zionism, created major uprisings of anger
and violence in the Arab community as over 100,000 Jews immigrated to
Palestine. After that, the British drastically limited Jewish
immigration. During WWII, many of the Palestinian Arabs and Jewish
individuals joined the allied forces. Post-war, the Jews fought back
against British limitations on immigration. They wanted survivors of
the Holocaust to be allowed to live in Palestine. The United Nations
Special Commission on Palestine suggested Palestine be split into an
Arab region and a Jewish state. Supported by the Jews, the UN made
this decision. On May 14, 1948, the Jews declared that Israel was
their independent state. 2. I disagree with the proposal of a 2-state
solution for the region. This is for two reasons in particular. For
one, no one ever seemed to take into account the fact that this land
is not only important to the Jewish peoples, but to members of every
other religion that is historically connected to land, such as
Christians and Muslims. This is a holy land that is sacred to so many
people, and no one or two religions should get to claim land that is
not theirs for the taking. Secondly, who’s to say that dividing the
country into two states would end the violence and thousands of years
of animosity between the two religions and groups of people? As
exemplified in the first attempt at dividing the region, not everyone
will be happy with the decision that has been made. History,
specifically with this conflict, has repeated itself time and time
again. The cycle of war to peace talks to decisions to hostility has
recurred several times, and can easily continue to occur. If the U.S.
takes any part in this ordeal, it should be to lay out the facts and
show people all the downsides to separating the region.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Alex Kim]

1. Zionism is the concept of Jewish settlement in Palestine. It is an
old concept, and cites the fact that Palestine has been the home of
Jews for a very long time, and that they have a right to settle there.
During the early 1900's, there was a large movement of Jews into the
area that would eventually become Israel, mostly to avoid persecution
in Europe. Jews that moved to Palestine were part of the so-called
Zionist movement. The Balfour Declaration stated Britain's support for
a Jewish state in Palestine, but also said that the Jewish people must
have a respect for the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living
in the area. When the influx of Jews created tensions between them and
the non-Jews in the region, tensions grew. A U.N. plan called for two
separate states, but the non-Jews refused. In 1948, when Israel
declared independence, violence broke out between Jews and non-Jews in
Palestine.
2. I think that, although it is tough to admit, the only way that
Israel can ever hope to coexist with the nations around it is if
another state is created in Palestine. I think that the United Sates
should play a role in the negotiations, because Israel is vitally
important to us, being the only true democracy in the Middle East. I
wish that peace could be established in a state where Jews and Muslims
could live peacefully, but tensions are dug deep and the violent
nature of the two sides probably will forever prevent a single, non-
violent state from existing. Two separate states could, in the end,
lead to peace. I think that the U.S. and the U.N. need to work closely
with the Israelis and Palestinians to provide clear, fair borders that
favor neither side. Perhaps Jerusalem could be a place inhabited by
both Jews and Muslims, because it has so much history and importance
in both religions. It is a tough issue, but one that I feel that the
U.S. and the U.N. have an obligation to help with.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah]

The Balfour Declaration and the Zionist movement are the bases upon
the modern day country of Israel was created. The Zionist movement is
the idea, which rapidly spread post-World War 2, that the Jewish
people should have a homeland that serves as a safe haven for all
Jews, specifically the current area of Israel, since it is where
Judaism was born. Zionism caused many Jews to immigrate to what was
then part of Palestine and stand up for their religious freedom to the
Palestinian authorities. The Balfour Declaration is a statement from
the British government declaring that what is now modern-day Israel is
the official homeland and safe haven for the Jewish people. Both of
these ideas heavily influenced the British government to decide to
declare the region of Israel the official homeland of the Jews, which
has since caused many disputes over the specific region.
While in theory the two-state solution is a good idea, in reality I
believe that it will never truly work, as both parties (the Muslims
and the Jews) will not be satisfied. While the Muslims will get their
own state, they don't need one and it is also not what they want; they
want the land of Israel back, since it is also of great religious
significance to them, which is not what they are getting out of this
solution. They will think that it is unfair that Israel gets to keep
they land which they both want, and they will not be satisfied with
the new Arab state since it is not the land currently called Israel. I
personally believe that the United States should not personally get
involved in the negotiations, since they will most likely end up
upsetting one party or the other, but if they must be part of the
negotiations they should play the role of mediator, since that is the
role least likely to offend anyone. The last thing the United States
needs are more enemies, and if the United States sides with any one
party, they will surely create more unnecessary conflicts in the
Middle East.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Allie Ziegler]

Zionism and the Balfour Declaration certainly played a role in the
British government's decision to separate the are into two separate
autonomous regions. Zionism, which is defined as the idea that Jews
should settle in Palestine, the Holy Land. After Russian persecution
of the Jews in the late 1800's and early 1900's the first wave of
Jewish immigration to the area know known as Palestine began. The
Balfour Declaration was issued by Britain in 1917 in an attempt to
gain Jewish support for their war efforts. It stated that Britain
supported the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine. When the Jew's
proclaimed Israel as an independent state in 1948, Britain withdrew
from Palestine. I believe that the combination of these two events,
the spread of Zionism and the signing of the Balfour Declaration
heavily contributed to Britain's decision to split the area into the
two separate regions. At this stage in time, hundreds and hundreds of
years into the conflict I believe that the two state solution for the
region is the only solution. I believe that because the conflict
between the Israeli's and the Palestinians is rooted so deep down in
the culture and history, there is no way to come to a mutualistic
living agreement for the region. In addition, the situation is clearly
not flourishing in its current state of Israeli control and
Palestinian division, so I believe a change is necessary. The
Palestinians certainly have a claim for the land, as do the Israeli's
and the people of many other religions. Since the area has such a rich
religious culture and has been the birthplace of many different
religions, it is understandable that many groups of people feel they
have a claim to this land. However, if those groups of people cannot
live peacefully together as the Israelis and the Palestinians cannot,
I do not believe that they all deserve to enjoy the land in unity.
That is why I agree with the present-day proposed two state solution
for the region, so that each group can remain in the area, however the
may rule and govern as they wish. I believe that the United States
should play a mediating role in the negotiations because it is
undeniable that the Israelis and Palestinians could not work this out
alone, and I believe the U.S. is the one to help them negotiate and
come to fair terms because of their continued financial support and
aid to Israel and dominant presence in the region. Also, because the
U.S. has given so much money to Israel, acting unbiased in the
negotiations would be very beneficial to them because it may gain back
some support of the Palestinians if they understand that the U.S. is
only there to help but not to fight one way or the other.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Yuichiro Iwamoto]

1. Zionism is the movement to establish a safe home for the Jewish
people around the holy area of Jerusalem. This movement was at its
heights after the Holocaust had ended. The Jews, who were the main
group that was targeted by the NAZIs were in need of this safe area
now more than ever. The Balfour Declaration basically stated the fact
that Britain had approved of the Zionist movement, and was in support
of separating the Palestinian territories to create a new safe land
for Jews. Both these significantly affected the British government's
decision to separate the area into 2 separate autonomous regions
because they expressed the dire need for this Jewish country. With so
many Jews supporting Zionism, this movement caught the attention of
the British government, and with the preexisting racial prejudices
against Jews combined with the Holocaust, it helped shape the divide
of Palestinian territories. The Balfour Declaration forced Britain to
take a strong view against anti-semitism. Because it stated that the
British government acknowledges and supports the views of the Jews and
the Zionist movement, it catalyzed Britain's decision of separating
Palestine into two areas.
2. I do not agree with the present-day proposed 2-state solution for
the region because I feel that the decision was strongly biased
towards the Jewish population. I understand the impact and the horror
of the Holocaust, but I still don't think that is enough to carve land
out of a country, and to drive people living in the land out just so
only the Jews could settle in the area. The fact that Palestine did
not have much say in this decision seems to be a major source of
problems that exist between the two nations Israel and Palestines
today. I believe that religious needs were overvalued in the decision
to split Palestine, and that Israel could have been located to an area
less related to the major religions of the world. I believe that the
US is playing the right role in negotiations. Israel, a western style
ally in the middle east serves as a strategic access point to the
middle east. To preserve this ally, I believe that US should associate
itself closely to Israel, and the problems surrounding it. However,
the decision to gift multiple air crafts to Israel for extending the
building moratorium for a mere 90 days seems a bit overdone.
Ultimately, a peace agreement between Israel, and Palestine would
benefit Israel, so this form of bribery feels unneeded. All in all,
the US's role as the protector of Israel, and as the host for the
Isreali-Palestinian conferences seems like a necessary one that may
result in a solution to the mixed religious and political problem of
Israel and Palestine.

[Adam]

Zionism and the Balfour Declaration both played a big role in the
British government's decision to separate the area into two separate,
autonomous regions in 1948. The Balfour Declaration was something
Britain issued in order to try and gain Jewish support for its war
effort. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a
Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration influenced the
British government's decision to separate the area into two separate
regions because they believed that creating a homeland for Jews would
help themselves get another ally. Zionism was a movement that some
Jews formed which wanted to make Palestine an independent Jewish
nation. This influenced the British government's decision because,
once again, they believed that if they helped out the Jews, the Jews
would help out Britain when needed.
I agree with the present-day proposed 2-state solution for the region.
I do because it is the most fair way of splitting up the two religious
groups. If one group gets the land, then the other group will be
constantly fighting in order to regain the area. This will especially
be the case if the Jews receive the land because the Muslim states all
around Israel would be angered about the decision and would probably
fight in order to gain back the territory. Also, aid to Israel
supports Palestinian oppression. If the US helps one side, the other
side will most likely be angered by this decision. Therefore, I
believe that the best solution for the region would to be completely
fair to both sides even if one side deserves or needs more assistance.
Like I said before, I believe that the US should either give an equal
amount of aid to each side or do nothing. This is what I think because
even though the US was influential in the creation of Israel, the US
doesn't have full responsibility for Israel. The US doesn't need more
enemies, and giving aid to Israel is creating Arab enemies. That is
why I believe the US should either not be an influence in the
negotiations, or the US should give equal aid to the Jews and the
Arabs.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[kevin]

1. In the British government's decision to split Palestine into two
regions, Zionism was one of the greatest forces supporting the
decision, and the Balfour Delaration was the formal declaration of the
intents of the British government regarding this issue. Zionism is the
belief that Palestine is the biblical home for the Jewish people and
that they deserve to reclaim the area as their rightful homeland. This
supported the formation of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine,
although the splitting Palestine in half probably wasn't what the
members of the Zionist movement had in mind. In the Balfour
Declaration, the British government formally announced their intent to
split Palestine in half. The Balfour Declaration was written in a
letter sent to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland
2. I do not agree with the 2-state solution for this region. If the
current situation continues, it will only cause more fighting between
the Muslims and the Jews, and more anger over the land. This is a
clear indication that something needs to change. I think that the role
that the United States should play in the negotiations is to suppy
Israel both with military and diplomatic support, until an agreement
can be made that would remove the pressure on Israel and allow the US
to withdraw its support. I think that a peaceful agreement of any sort
would be beneficial for the United States if only for the fact that it
allows Israel to stand on its own, however, I do not think that
withdrawing our support for Israel too early would serve anyone any
good, as Israel would more than likely collapse, and all of the work
that the US has poured into supporting it would be lost. Basically, I
believe that now that we've invested so much into this confict, we
might as well stay in until the end, but of course the sooner we can
focus on other things, the better.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah North]

Both Zionism and the Balfour Declaration undoubtedly both served as
major players in shaping Britain’s reasoning to divide the region
commonly referred to as Palestine into two separate statehoods in
1948. By definition, Zionism is basically the belief that the Jewish
people have an irrevocable right to settle in Palestine due to their
religious ties to the land. This movement is essentially what fueled
the sudden boom of immigration that occurred during this time and the
immense pressure put on world leaders to give the Jewish people the
land in which they felt they so rightfully deserved. The Balfour
Declaration, in short, states that Britain would fully endorse the
Jewish community in their quest to create a homeland within Palestine
in return for their support in World War II. So naturally, when the
war was finally a thing of the past, Britain followed through on its
word and divided Palestine into a Jewish state and Arab state.
While I do support the proposed two state solution, it is my fervent
opinion that this is easier said than done. Though the idea sounds
promising in theory, this issue is too deeply rooted and has grown far
too complex to be solved with such a simple solution. As much as I
wish I could argue the contrary, you simply cannot erase such a long
winded history of hatred and violence in one foul swoop. It is going
to take time and flexibility from both parties involved, flexibility
that Israel and Palestine will most likely not be willing to give.
Most Arabs don't even recognize Israel as a sovereignty, which frankly
does not do well to depict future productive negotiations between the
two. Considering that the US has done so much to support Israel, I
feel that it is the moral duty of our nation to attempt to at least
get Israel and Palestine to begin discussing possible options for the
future. The path to peace for these two nations will be bumpy, to say
the least. However if both parties express a true, genuine desire for
peace, I believe anything is possible with time.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[jblr...@aim.com]

From what I understand about Zionism, my take on it is that it is a
worldwide Jewish movement that was founded by Theodor Herzl, which
proposed that Jews should return to their homeland, Palestine, which
now resulted in the developing the state of Israel. The Balfour
Declaration was issued in the form of a letter sent from the British
Foreign Secretary, Lord Arthur James Balfour in the year 1917. The
document expressed British support publicly of a "national home" for
people of the Jewish religion in Palestine. I believe that both
Zionism and the Balfour Declaration played a major role as to why the
British government decided to separate the area into two separate,
autonomous regions in the year 1948. The role that Zionism played in
causing the British government to make this decision was that back
during World War One Zionists ingratiated themselves to British
imperialism. These Zionists were hoping that Britain would reward
them for defeating the Ottoman Empire, whom controlled Palestine. I
believe that Britain helping the Zionists achieve their goal of having
a "national home" for Jews, was most definately them repaying the
Zionists for their work. The Tory Cabinet Minister, then Winston
Churchill quoted the following about about helping the Zionists and
the reasoning behind why they supported the development of Israel was:
"a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown...would from
every point of view be beneficial and would be especially in harmony
with the truest interests of the British Empire." What a great
argument for the Brits. It looks like the British just owed the
Zionists a few favors. The role that the Balfour Declaration played
was confirming that Great Britain would support the Zionists in making
a home for Jewish People. It wouldn't happen til' 31 years later, but
the British helped follow through with the decision they had made in
1917. Following up these two topics, I agreee with the present-day
proposed 2-state solution for the region, and I belie e that the
United States should back down during negotiations over this dispute.
There is no possible way that the Palestinians and Israelis could
possibly for a one-state country where everyone gets along and
tolerates eachother. They've been fighting with each other for nearly
forty years and have most definately hated each other for much longer
then that. They can't compromise and form one country, but they need
to agree to disagree and give up on all the little details and make a
truce. Countries and groups like the United Nations need to get
together and say "enough is enough." and make it that Israel and
Palestine are firmly 2-states and figure out how everything will be
divided and huge punishments for further argumentation or any war-
like issues or violence. I strongly believe that the United States
should not be involved in these negotiations. We have stood by Israel
for so long and it's time that we put a distance between our country
and their's. We're their "crutch", and they need to learn to walk on
their own. Israel is constantly using us for the bribes that we give
them and saying they will work on the Israeli-Palestinian issues as a
result of these bribes, but in truth they don almost nothing, nothing
gets done and no issues are truely solved. Other countries around the
globe have come to loathe us for so strongly supporting Israel, and I
think that it's time that we step back and try to make for allies in
the world and let Israel work out some of its own issues. I do not
think we should leave Israel completely defenseless, it is such a
small and hated country (by some), but it needs to know that we have
other issues to deal with besides their problems, and I believe our
country needs to start focusing on our own core issues and not those
of other countries.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[preeya...@live.com]

In 1948 the British government decided to split Palestine into two
separate states: a Jewish state, and an Arab state. At the time the
Zionist movement was fighting for a nation for the Jewish people who
had been displaced after the Holocaust. They believed that the place
best suitable for their people would be the birth place of their
religion, Jerusalem. Therefore many Jewish people moved to Palestine
to create their own homeland. Because of this the British government
was pushed to create an official country that the Jewish people could
call home. The Balfour Declaration stated that the British government
was in favor of creating a land for the Jewish people. Though it was
leaning more towards the Zionist side, the Balfour Declaration made it
clear that in this new land those who were not Jewish were to maintain
their religious and civil rights. Combining these two ideas, the
British government thought it best to make two separate states from
the Palestinian land. This way the Jewish people had a place to call
home, and the Palestinian people were not majorly affected. Personally
I agree with the present-day two state solution. It is an equal
compromise between the two sides, and I believe that this is the most
peaceful resolution. I fear that if we don’t take action to make a
peaceful split now, it may end up starting a war between the two sides
over who gets the land. The United States could help by deciding what
to do with the Jewish settlements scattered across present-day Israel.
By ensuring that the settlements stop we can assure that there will be
no unwanted Jewish settlements on Palestinian land after the split is
made.

[Saad Imran]

Zionism and the Balfour declaration played a great role in the British
government's role into two separate, autonomous regions. Zionism is
the idea that Jews should settle in Palestine, as to them it is
considered to be their homeland. The Balfour declaration was made
after World War 1, and it was basically that Britain was in support of
the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian area, and pressured Britain
to mandate Jewish territories in that area. It is clear that the roles
both events played were that 1) Zionism created the whole idea of a
jewish homestate, and which then seperated the palestinian territories
into an Arab and Jewish state, and brought continous conflict in that
area, and 2) the Balfour declaration although stating that it would
not violate rights of existing non-Jewish communities, it obviously
did, and then this idea od not violating rights then led to the
creation of the two separate regions.

As this is a very controversial topic, and it is very easy to be bias
towards one side, it is quite difficult to choose whether I agree or
diagree with the 2 state solution. Although, if i were to pick a
solution i would pick the 2 state solution, as although it doesnt make
the arabs or anyone for that matter completely satisfied, it still
doesnt completely favor one side or the other. I do think that the
United States should play with these negotiations. They can properly
look and suggest what is proper for all religions and carefully watch
and see that the negotiations are done peacefully and without any
violence. I also think in addition to the U.S other countries with a
more independent view on this topic should also play with the
negotiations.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Dan Maxwell]

The Zionism movement is basically the idea that the Jewish people
should settle in Palestine. Since the beginning of Abraham, the Jews
have believed this, and ever since the late 1800's, the movement had
gained strength. Jews were fleeing all over the world from countries,
and this idea was made official during the World Wars. During this
time period, Britain needed help. In order to gain support from its
Jewish followers, it created the Balfour Declaration which stated that
a Jewish home should be created in Palestine, however, it should not
harm or effect other surrounding countries (Which was a huge
understatement). After the war, Britain was stuck with dealing with
its declaration to make a Jewish state in Palestine, and it finally
had to stick to its words and in 1948, the state of Israel was
created. This started a chain reaction of violence between the Israel/
Palestine areas ever since.
I believe that the present day 2-state solution for Israel and
Palestine is the only way that the 2 different cultures can get along.
For many many years, the two sides have been fighting about who has
ownership of the holy land, Jerusalem. Both sides believe that they
and only them have a claim to it. I do not think that the negotiations
going on currently are going to be able to solve anything. These peace
talks are the 9th in a series of unsuccessful tries for co-existance.
This try will be unsuccessful, and so will the next, and the next.
Each time, it will get harder and harder to distinguish who is right
and who is wrong. The Jews and the Muslims have been debating for so
many years, that each year, the black line dividing the two sides will
get grayer and grayer. Claims to who owns what and where will become
more disputed and hazy. Both sides have a deep heritage in Jerusalem,
one that goes so far back that neither will give ground to the other
side. The only way is to complete a compromise, and create 2 states.
It has been shown that in history, most of the time when two sides are
debating, a compromise is the only way to get a decision done. The
U.S. should play the role of mediator in these talks, because we do
not want to choose a side, which could create uproar and hate from the
other side, which the U.S. doesn't need at all. Right now, our
relations with Muslims are not too good, and choosing to side with
Israel will create complete chaos in the Muslim world which we don't
want. The only way is to choose the mediator, and try to restore peace
between the two sides with a 2-state solution.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

1. Leading up to and during the tumultuous year of 1948, Zionism and
the Balfour Declaration had quite an important role in the British
government's choice to separate Palestine into two autonomous regions.
Although religious tensions had existed in the Middle East since the
very foundations of the world's major religions, the 19th and early
20th centuries brought a wave of new discrimination for Jews
throughout Europe and Russia, and carried along with it a generation
of activists like Theodor Herzel, who concluded that Jews simply could
not assimilate to the oppressive non-Jewish culture. The spread of
Zionism, or the belief that Israel should be created in order to allow
Jewish people to return to their homeland, was especially fueled by
the growing threat of the Nazi regime. After the Holocaust, the
British government decided to establish a Jewish state in the area
known as Palestine, in order to give Jewish people a refuge from the
lingering shock and uncertainty that was post-WWII Europe. The Balfour
Declaration and the year of 1948 has since changed not only the map,
but the course of history.

2. Being a more of a "dove", I tend to approach this issue with a
"Can't we all just get along?" attitude; however, it's obvious that
the problems run far too deeply to be solved with a handshake between
the leaders of two states. At this point, when Hamas is only beginning
to hint at so much as "recognizing" Israel, I think that we're far
from the solution many hope that this two-state proposal will bring
about. Many of the problems and animosity that exist between the two
groups will not simply disappear once "official" borders are drawn; in
order to approach this problem, leaders first need to address more
basic issues like the building of settlements. And, well, recognizing
each other as states.

It's difficult to say what sort of role the United States should play
in the negotiations -- the problem is that, like the Israeli and
Palestinian governments, we'd be entering talks not as an unbiased
peacemaker, but as another country with its own agenda. We value
Israel's status as a democracy in the Middle East... but we also don't
want to upset its oil-rich neighbors if we show too much support for
the much-disputed country. I think that the US should have an
important role in the talks -- we do, after all, have much at stake --
however, negotiations should not go unchecked as the US angles towards
its own best interests. If this happens and we don't actually reach
the root of the conflict, the problems will likely continue, even if
two separate states exist. Therefore, I believe that a group like the
UN should also be involved; although it's leadership is highly
influenced by the US, the point of view will be somewhat broader.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Matt Ming]

1. The Zionist movement was a movement to give Jews their own
national homeland, which began after many attempts to integrate into
societies around the world had proved futile. The Zionist movement
stated that Jews had a claim to the land around Palestine because of
Biblical ties suggesting that it is the true home of the Jewish
people. The Zionist movement, and the school of thought of the
Zionist movement, Zionism, helped motivate Jews around the world and
made them feel that they were deserving of their own land, especially
the land in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was a statement by
Britain that the British were in support of the construction of a
nation for Jews. This spurred attempts to gain favor for the creation
of a Jewish homeland. Eventually, after World War II, the Jews were
granted their own nation in Palestine. This was facilitated by the
fervor of creating a sovereign Jewish state that the Zionist movement
had the Zionist movement had kindled and by the declaration of support
by Britain.
2. I believe that animosity will still exist between the two groups,
the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, even if the Palestinians were
granted the right to claim a portion of the disputed territory for
their own sovereign homeland. Further, violence could escalate if
both groups seek to assert greater control over the region. Both
nations would still have feelings of bitterness and vengeance towards
each other. Israel would be bitter because of loss of land to
Palestine, and the Palestinians would be bitter about having been
denied freedom for so many years. These feelings could easily start a
new conflict or, at the very least, fail to quell the current
animosity between the two groups. Thus, I feel that splitting the
area into two autonomous countries would not necessarily end the
conflicts there.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Irina Ahn]

1. Zionism, the idea that Jews should settle in Palestine, and the
Balfour Declaration was attempt to gain support for the British war
efforts against the Ottoman Empire in World War I from the Jews and
stated the British support for Palestine, the land where the Jews once
lived, to be the Jews' independent land once again played a big role
in the British government's decision to separate the area into two
separate regions. The Zionist movements' goal was to make Palestine
the land for the Jews again after the Arabs had claimed it as their
land. in the early 1900's, Jews fled Nazi Germany and Poland as
refugees to Palestine. After the Jews were attacked in World War II,
more international nations began to support that Palestine should be a
Jewish land. From the late 1800's to around World War II, Zionists had
started to establish farm colonies in Palestine. The UN suggested that
Palestine be split into two regions one for the Arabs and the other
for the Jews and while the Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected and
fights began to break out.
2. Right now, i agree with the present-day proposed two state
solution. I believe the proposition is necessary because the dominance
of the Israeli control and division for the Palestinians is causing
too many conflicts. Because once a long time ago Palestine used to be
the Holy Land for the Jews and Christians and now is the land that the
Palestinians claim, its causing constant outbreaks and oppositions.
Since the conflicts are based on such a culturally vibrant and long
history of conflicts and events, its hard for a peaceful agreement for
the land and there is no unity, its like a constant battle. With this
proposition however, both the Israelis' and the Palestinians will have
part of the land, but hopefully it will stop the Israelis' from
spreading more into the current Palestinian land and will give more
stable boundaries of land to keep somewhat of peace and unity in the
land. This may be hard to do though considering the history of
conflicts that have occurred between the two nations. According to
the Jews, the land was appointed to them by God, but the Palestinians
have also been living there for so long, so they both have there
rights to the land. They continue to try and have peace talks, but
just end up with more disagreement. I think that the United States
should be like a middle man, helping both nations to negotiate peace
talks and decide on a fair agreement for both sides regarding the
land. Since the Palestinians have seen the US giving so much aid and
financial support to Israel, showing the Palestinians that we just
want to help them resolve the problem instead of choosing sides might
lighten the frustrations a bit and might bring in some understanding.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Claire]

1. Both Zionism and the Balfour Declaration played major roles in the
British government's decision to split Palestine into two separate
areas in 1948. Zionism is the belief that Jewish people should settle
in Palestine, because the Bible describes Palestine as their ancient
homeland. Because Zionism spread throughout the Jewish community,
there was a huge influx of Jews that flooded into the Palestinian
land, and consequently, the Jews sought to make an independent Jewish
nation within Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was a 1917 document
that Britain issued in an attempt to gain Jewish support for its WW1
war efforts. This declaration expressed support for the creation of a
Jewish state in Palestine, without breaching the rights of the already
existing communities. Combined, these two factors heavily influenced
the British to split Palestine, forming an autonomous Jewish nation
where Jews could live in a safer and more independent environment.
2. I do not agree with the present solution in place for the region,
as I believe that it has only caused excess conflict and puts
unnecessary stress upon the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Dividing the land has only made the Palestinians angry, and Israel
cannot expand without major discord. If there was no official division
between the two groups, then the Jews and Palestinians could have
meshed livelihoods peacefully, each group tolerant of the other while
living in the same community. If other countries like the U.S. have
been able to handle major immigration of ethnic groups, then Palestine
should have been able to handle it as well. Additionally, the U.S. is
mixed into the whole conflict because it has been aiding Israel, and
therefore the U.S. is not on friendly terms with the Palestinians or
their allies. It was silly of the British government to create a
completely new territory for the Jews, as all it has done is deepen
the intolerance that the Jews and Palestinians have of each other, as
well as impose trouble on other countries. Concerning negotiations, I
believe that the U.S. should just try and stay out of it as much as
possible. The problem is mainly between the Israelis and Palestinians,
and the U.S. has not really done anything other than give Israel aid.
Should Palestine accuse the U.S. of doing something bad, then the U.S.
should go in and explain itself. However, when it comes to reaching a
consensus about a solution to the current conflict, it should be the
Palestinians and Israelis who get to decide what is best for their
land and their people.

On Dec 9, 7:48 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Grace]

Two factors strongly impacting the British decision to ultimatly
seperate the state of Palestine into two seperate regions were
certainly Zionism and the Balfour Declaration. Zionism, being the
movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland,
advocated for a Jewish state and supplied the reasoning that the
Jewish people should have rights to their religious homeland. During
World War 1 Britian favored the idea of Zionism more as act of
policy. By supporting the movement British parliment hoped to gain
the favor of the U.S and eventually sway them to join the war. From
this came the Balfour Declaration, which stated publicy the British
support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and with World War 2 came a
renewing of the declaration and the seperatation of Palestine into two
regions.
I believe that the proposed 2-state solution for the region can not
suffice as a stable plan for the area, but that in many ways no other
solutions are possible. Personally, I believe the sense of
entitlement that the Jews feel towards Isreal can not be justified.
This area in the middle east is rich with religios history for Jews,
Christians, and Muslims alike and the idea that only one religion be
entitled to it seems ludacris. This being said I understand the
desperate need for a Jewish state during World War 2 and do belive
that during that time period the need for a Jewish state was
warrented. Now, long after the end of WW2, tension continues between
the Jews and the Muslims in the middle east. This tension proves that
there may be no other safe solution to the termoil than the continued
plans for a Jewish state. Until the Isreali's and the Palestian's can
get along in their respective states the call for the regions to be
united will not be possible.
Though the U.S has allied with Isreal time and again, Isreal has
recently made it diffucult for the U.S to come out on top. With the
Isreali's displacing many Palestians and settling outside of their
given territory they are beining to look like the more at fault party.
Though Palestine is not nearly innocent in this dispute, Isreal is
continuing to make the U.s's job as an ally more diffucult. I believe
that the U.S really must be a peace-keeper in negotiations between the
countries. They must buffer conversation between the countries and
help Isreal to defend themselves but to also act in a way that does
not warrent retaliation. Though the U.S has remained Isreal's ally
through and through, we must make sure that Isreal is putting equal or
more effort into the peace-keeping and that the U.S is not defending a
guilty party.

[Julia Bryck]

In 1917, when British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote a
letter declaring his zionist views, that Palastine should be created
as the homeland of the jews, the work of creating a separate haven
began. Then, when the letter writtne by Balfour was released to the
public, the zionist intentions of the country were evident and as a
result, the League of Nations accepted the mandate in 1922. Britain
was given temporary control over Palestine, paving the way for the
future separation of the two regions. After World War II, there were
still large anti-semitic feelings across the world, and Britain knew
that without their own country, the jewish population would not have a
safe home.
I do not agree with the present-day proposed two-state solution
primarily because it has not worked in this area thus far and does not
show signs of ever working in the future. Despite the fact that the
Palestinians feel they have a claim to the land, to go so far as to
separate into a different country in order to haev a homeland was not
the best decision. An act that was supposed to bring peace to its
people has resulted in nothing but conflict. Specifically, Israel has
found ways to persecute Palestinians by encroaching on their land and
stopping supplies going to their regions. This is completely
unjustifiable behavior on which United States needs to take a strong
stance. We are pouring too much money into Israel to simply watch it
do whatever in wants. It is hypocritical to turn a blind eye to the
injustices Israel commits cimply because they are an ally. Is it not
our job as the United States to be sympathetic not just to our allies,
but to human beings in general? The way it is being handled at the
moment, the situation is a political issue more than a humanitarian
issue. Innocent human lives are being affected, and the more the
United States plays a role in the negotiations, the sooner some sort
of agreement, even is chances seem small, can be reached. Israel will
be faithful because of the substantial donations we make; its time to
focus on other countries in the region.

[kim]

1. Zionism and the Balfour Declaration both played an important role
in the decision to separate the area in to two different regions.
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people should settle in
Palestine, their homeland. The Balfour Declaration says that Israel,
originally part of Palistine, is now separate from Palestine, and now
safe haven for the Jewish people as their homeland.
2. I disagree with the two state solution for the region. I found it
silly that people find it necessary for two groups of people to say,
"This is my land, and that is yours. You can't touch my land, because
it is my land, even though it is important to you too." I think there
should just be one country, where all who find the area important in
their beliefs are welcome and accepted, instead of a place where
people just argue back and forth about something that truly belongs to
the both of them. I think that the US, if it should play a role in
anything, should help negotiate something that would be acceptable to
both groups, such as the idea proposed above, because even with the
aid from the US, this situation is still going nowhere. Violence
obviously isn't going to solve this. If it could, this would have
ended ages ago. What's needed now is diplomacy.

[dalton morris]

Zionism and the Balfour declaration played a huge role in the decision
to separate the autonomous regions in 1948. Zionism is basically the
thought that the Jews should live in their homeland, which is now
referred to as Palestine. The Balfour Declaration really showed
Britain's support for the Zionist movement. It stated that they
supported the creation of Palestine and a home for the Jews. It also
says that states that certain rights should not be violated of
existing non-jewish settlements. These two things created Palestine
and the homeland for Jews.
I do not agree with the 2-state plan that is currently issued. This
land means too much to many religions for one religion to basically
own all of it. There is always going to be conflict over this land
because many religions claim this land to be their "holy-land." It was
a bad decision to give all the land to one religion. If this 2-state
system continues, fighting will continue forever. Something needs to
be done to resolve this ongoing war. In regards to U.S involvement, I
think they need to step in and help resolve much of this fighting. I'm
not sure exactly how much they could really accomplish but something
needs to be done and as the biggest, most powerful country in the
world we can definitely do something to stop some of the conflict and
fighting over this sacred land.

[mclax...@aol.com]

Both Zionism and the Balfour Declaration played an important role in

the British government's decision to separate the area into 2 separate

regions in 1948. Zionism, the idea in the mid 1800s that Jews should
settle in the Palestine area because they belong there for it was once
the Holy grounds of the Israelites. However there is much conflict in
this area because it is a Holy land for other religions such as Islam.
Therefore it was appropriate for the British government to separate
the holy region into two parts for both the muslims and the jews. The
Balfour Declaration, a declaration in support of an establishment in
Palestine for the Jewish people also stated that the British was in
favor of the Jews having a part of this holy land and that they
deserved it because of their history. As the zionist movement guided
many Jews back to their homeland, the Balfour declaration also
supported these Jews and the British established a holy land for
them.
I agree with the present day 2 state solution because simply their is
no option. I am unsure if the solution will work though. The Arabs
feel that the holy land is their religious homeland too and therefore
there is this constant conflict between the two religions to gain the
land. I am unsure of the 2 state solution because of the disliking of
the each other between Israel and Palestine. Will the two states be
able to not interfere with other? That is very unlikely in my mind due
to the struggles they have with each other as we speak. These
disagreements have been going on for hundreds of years so nothing
makes me sure that this solution will have a positive effect in the
near future. I feel that the United States should continue to monitor
the situation. Although we have been unsuccessful with our constant
efforts to discuss peace between the two parties, I feel that we can't
back off now.

[Katherine Singh]

1. Zionism and the Balfour Declaration were the two main contributing
factors to Britain's decision in 1948. The Zionist movement was
defined by the idea that Jews had the right to an independent country
in the land of Palestine. The Jews' motivation behind this was mostly
because they wanted to be in their biblical homeland and they also
wanted to escape the growing antisemitism in Europe. The Balfour
Declaration was released by the British in 1917 and showed Britain's
support for the creation of a Jewish country in Palestine while still
respecting and leaving the non-Jewish communities there. Britain's
decision to split the countries in 1948 was made to respect the ideas
of both the Zionist movement and their former support for the Jews and
Pallestinians to live peacefully in the same land.
2. I don't agree witht the 2 state solution because the two groups
haven't settled in distinct halves in the land. The Jews, in
particular, are continuing builing new settlements around where the
Palestinians are living. The Palestinians and Israelites have been
arguing for centuries, and as long as they're around each other they
can't live peacefully. The current set up with the Israelites and
Palestinians living mixed together brings up a lot of conflict, and
because they are mixed it would be impossible to come up with 2
separate countries without conflict. The U.S. role in all of this was
to get the two countries to talk, but the U.S. has an obvious bias
towards Israel. That might start arguments later or just make things
not go as smoothly as they could, so rather than having the U.S. as a
mediator I think a neutral country should regulate the peace talks.

[Andrew Lin]

Zionism – the intense aching by many Jews for a single Jewish state –
has played out rather interestingly on the world stage in recent
years, with many of the dreams of the Zionists having come true at the
expense of the lives of the Palestinians. The general root of this
problem with the execution of these Jewish-state dreams lies far back
in the annals of religious history – but the modern root of the
current squabbles between Arabs and Jews for Israel can be squarely
traced to Great Britain’s Balfour Declaration. Motivated itself by
Zionist wants and political leanings, the Balfour Declaration (passed
in 1917) stated that Great Britain supported the formation of a
Zionist state in Israel. Though a good promise, and one backed up by
history, Great Britain had made a mistake with the Balfour
Declaration; they had forgotten the pledge they made earlier to the
Arabs (1914) that the Arabs would get the area known today as Israel.
When 1948 rolled around, the British, confronted again with a mess of
their own design, decided to take both contradicting statements into
consideration. Ordinarily, since the Arab claim was staked and
confirmed first, the Arabs would have gotten the land. The Balfour
Declaration an Zionism, however, got in the way of that simple
situation, and adding to these complications was the fact that the
Jewish population was nearly exterminated in the Holocaust of World
War II. Therefore, posed with a difficult choice between fairly
satisfying the Arab wants versus fairly satisfying the Jewish wants,
Britain decided to choose both, and split the territory into two
separate states.
Fast-forward some 60 years past the 6 or so wars that have since
occurred in the region and one can see that Britain did not do a very
good job with this partition. The responsibility of cleaning up this
massive mess in the Middle East has fallen on the rest of the world,
and on the United States in particular. And with this coterie of
leaders ready and willing to solve the problem, a plan has been
formulated for a tentative two-state solution to the whole massive
problem – a solution that will not work. This is not meant to fault
the solution itself; on paper, the two-state partition seems logical,
rational, and very sound. What will doom the proposal, however, are
practical considerations and the solemn fact that nothing short of God
himself could resolve this dispute peacefully. Creating two states
will require the relocation or assimilation of many thousands of
individuals trapped behind the lines; if borders are arbitrarily
drawn, then this situation will only be exacerbated by general fury
over the borders. The political difficulties in executing a two-state
solution – or any solution at all – are far too immense for any one
proposal to solve. The Israel-Palestine problem will continue and
continue and continue until World War III – then, there will be no one
left to argue about the issue at all.