• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why was the United Nations Resolution 242 not acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians in 1967 and the years after?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why was the United Nations Resolution 242 not acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians in 1967 and the years after? The United Nations passed resolution 242 in 1967. This has been the basis for all succeeding attempts at resolving the issues. The resolution called for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories; all Middle East states to live in peace within secure and registered boundaries and a just settlement for the refugee problem. The resolution basically stated that Israel should have the right to exist and that it should be known. This resolution was agreed by all of the Arab states including Egypt and Jordan, but however the Israelis and the Palestinians did not. The Israelis wouldn't want to leave these occupied territories at all, as they wanted all of this land to them selves. The main reason that they wanted the land was for safety purposes, when they had the land they felt more in control of the Palestinians and were on a higher ground to look over them, and feel at ease from possible attack. ...read more.

Middle

Finally they still hold the feeling that the land that is being taken away from them is rightfully theirs, they think that it is god that led them to it, and that god meant for it to be theirs. Religion was important to them and if they believed that they could own this land thanks to religion then they would happily accept. Because they were not willing to accept these terms, and they still want to keep all the land to them selves it is likely to make peace harder to come by as the Israelis are loosing land which is vital to them for safety, and if safety can not be insured they are likely to continue to use destructive terrorist plans which will lead to more hatred between the sides and so more killing and upset. The Palestinians were also desperate not to accept the resolution, recognising the state of Israel would be like admitting defeat for them which would make them seem cowardly and ...read more.

Conclusion

The Israelis and the Palestinians not agreeing to this resolution is sure to make peace harder to come by as there is likely to be an increase in terrorist activity from both sides as they get more and more angry with the other side taking their land and not sharing the land of recourses, safety and settlers. For example in some circumstances, many young Palestinians began to organise them selves into groups, Yassar Arafat formed an organisation called FATAH in the 1950's, and many other groups were created, one took part in a major terrorist attack in kidnapping the Israeli Olympic team and killing them. Its things like this which will wind the other side up more and more, and instead of fighting for the land because they think its rightfully theirs they will be doing it out of spite, and just because they don't want the other side to have it. The fact that nobody accepts the resolution creates more tension, thus leading to more killing and making peace harder to come by in the future. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Middle east section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Middle east essays

  1. Assess the effectiveness of the Arab and Israeli peace initiatives from the 1970s to ...

    When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

  2. Why is it difficult to keep peace talks going in the Middle East?

    In fact during early Islam it was here and not Mecca where Muslims used to face in order to pray The events of 09/11 have emboldened fanatical Muslims around the world to dream that the western culture can be brought down along with Israel whose military is subsidized by American taxpayers.

  1. Terrorism and the United States

    The methods used in terrorism include threats, bombings, and the destruction of property, kidnapping, and the taking of hostages, executions, and assassinations. As we are approaching the new millennium, it seems that terrorism is becoming another one of society's constant problems.

  2. Palestinian refugee problem - source related study

    Source A says that 'This Zionist force included elements from the Irgun led by Menachim Begin'. Menachim Begin later became the Prime Minister of Israel. The PLO will be trying to hint that Begin was directly involved in this 'terrorist' attack.

  1. What are the main differences between the views of the Israeli's and the Palestinians?

    After this the whole world had a new found sympathy for the Jews, as they were victimized. The holocaust caused the Jews to intermingle. Many moved back to Palestine after Hitler was defeated. For centuries the Arabs have lived in what we call the Middle East.

  2. The Significance of Canada's Contribution to the Resolution of the Suez Crisis.

    As British, French and Israeli troops began to move into Egypt, the Soviet Union encouraged Nasser to hold his ground, providing him with weapons and critical intelligence. The Crisis soon escalated from a small territorial dispute, into a threat toward another world war.

  1. Why is there still so much fear, suspicion and hatred between the Israelis and ...

    This feeling of mistrust and suspicion affected later decisions held by both groups, and no doubt hindered the peace. This outlook also affected the general attitude of the people, which has made it difficult for them to accept each other.

  2. To what extent do the Israelis and the Palestinians each have history on their ...

    The Palestinian interpretation of historical evidence would certainly indicate that the earliest evidence surrounding the question of legitimacy would prove that the Canaanites were the earliest people to establish a societal stronghold on today's Israel, thus making the Palestinian people, by virtue of lineage, the party with the oldest historical claim to the land of Israel.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work