Israel And Her Neighbours 1945 - c.1994.

Authors Avatar

Israel And Her Neighbours 1945 – c.1994.

Assignment 2.

Question a.

        Source A shows two women demonstrating outside the Israeli Embassy in 1973. One of the women is a Palestinian Arab who was born in Palestine and the other is an American Jew who was born in America. They are holding signs which state how the rule of “right to return” affects them. The message they are trying to get across seems to be that it is unfair that an Arab who was born in Palestine and considers it his/her home should not be able to live there, while the Jew, born in America can. The fact that the two women are demonstrating side by side, and fighting for the same cause with the same views shows that the Jews and Arabs are not all that different and some are able to get along and agree.

        Source B is an extract taken from a historical book describing the great differences between Arabs and Jews. The writer’s view is that the two peoples differ so much in language, religion, culture, conduct and social behaviour that they could not possibly live together as one nation.

        The messages of the two sources are quite conflicting, as source B states that “there is no common ground between them”, meaning that they are so different in every way that it would be impossible for them to get along, while source A contradicts this and proves that it is possible for Arabs and Jews to agree, and to act together in the same way. Also, the American Jew is also protesting against the Israeli government, and this shows us that even the Jewish people do no support these actions by their government. This is another way in which source A contradicts source B, because source B implies that all the Jewish people are against the Arabs returning, and in favour of the government’s actions.

Question b.

        The authors of sources C and D both state that they will never accept the existence of Israel and are in agreement that it should be destroyed completely. The fact that they hold these views is not surprising as they are both Arab leaders from states hostile to Israel. In source C it states that the Syrians “will never call for, nor accept peace”, and in source D it claims that the existence of Israel is an “error” and a “disgrace”, again suggesting that it can never be accepted.

        These sources although a bit extreme, provide good evidence of the attitude taken up by the governments of those Arab states at that time in 1966 and 1967. But we have to remember that these statements were made at a time when the Arab governments were preparing for another war with Israel. It was therefore likely that the governments should try and justify that what they were planning to do was right. Also they could have done this to influence their people into thinking Israel was a hostile country, and so should be seen as the enemy, and to build up determination to fight and destroy it. These are reliable sources as they help us to see views of the Arab leaders at the time. These sources are supporting a particular political policy held by Arab states at a particular time, so they should not be taken as proving completely that the Arab states would not under different circumstances agree to a compromise and agree to accept the existence of the state of Israel. Also the Arab nations were the fact had lost the Suez War in 1956, which angered them deeply and therefore caused even more resentment and hatred for them. However, if you look at source G, written by a Palestinian writer, all he wants is just to return to his homeland, not “wipe Israel off the map”. This contrasts the Arabs leaders’ view of source D. Source G along with source A show a regular Arab’s view of the matter, which is contrasting both sources C and D.

Join now!

Question c.

        Source E recounts a conversation in a bar where a Palestinian Jew describes how he dealt with some Arabs who used to raid his father’s factory. He explains how the Arabs would lie on a hill overlooking the factory and fire at their men. After an incident when a man was killed this Jew and another man mined the hill ready for when the Arabs came back. When they did come back every one of them was killed. The Jew justifies his actions with the phase “An eye for an eye a tooth for a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay