On February 6, 2020, violent acts in Jerusalem were committed moments after the Trump administration had released the Mideast plan. As stated in (CNN Politics)
"President Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed a Middle East plan that he claimed was a "realistic two-state solution" but caters to nearly every major Israeli demand and was immediately rejected by Palestinians. It lays the groundwork for Israel to immediately begin annexing all of its settlements in the West Bank with US backing and also foresees the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty after a transition period. Palestinian negotiators have not had direct contact with the Trump administration in more than two years."
The Mideast plan caused tension to rise between the Israeli people and the Palestinians. This was because the middle east plan favored isreali priorities and created it without any input from the Palestinians . The Palestinians believe that Trump's deal is racist as the deal itself is more biased toward the Israeli commands. Palestinians and the Israeli people have had tension since 1915. The US and the Isreali government have been working on this plan for three years now, and the Palestiniens haven't even spoken to the US in two years.The spike is caused by having no input by the palestinesn in which "it greatly favors Israel and is rejected by the Palestinians" (abcnews). The two have been at conflict for 100-105 years now.
"Israeli forces killed two Palestinians in clashes in the occupied West Bank on Thursday and a third in Jerusalem after he opened fire at police, hours after a car-ramming attack elsewhere in the city wounded 12 Israeli soldiers. Tensions have soared following last week's release of President Donald Trump's Mideast initiative, which greatly favors Israel and was rejected by the Palestinians. The violence put the plan on the even shakier ground and raised fears of another extended round of fighting in the decades-old conflict." (abcnews)
Many acts of violence were committed all over the west bank. These clashes are very out of the norm and haven't happened in years. Many Palestinians started to protest due to the rejection of the Peace plan. As the protest came to an end, more violence occurred, all over the West Bank, Israel and Gaza. All of this adds an increase of tension to the Israel and Palestine authority. This escalation of tension and violence concerns many people, and the authorities are doing their best to keep their people safe.
I don't think it's fair to make decisions about a conflict with only one side's opinion/demands; nevermind something as big as the Israel-Palestinian conflicts that's been going on for a long long time. If only one side's ideas are taken into consideration, then the the "solution" likely will be biased towards one of the two sides, in this case, Israel. This not only makes the US look like they are favoring one country/ group over the other, but that it's only going to make the conflict even worst. The decision that president Trump made was doomed to spark the vendetta between the two countries before it was even announced. All in all, only taking one group's input, especially when trying to make peace between two countries, is a bad idea...
ReplyDeleteIt was definitely not fair to make such a massive proposition/decision with only the input from one side. This is a situation where both sides need to agree completely to the proposed terms and promise to cease hostilities. If the terms are only directed to one side, there is no hope for stability or peace in this region.
ReplyDeleteOverall, it was definitely unfair to take one group's opinion instead of both. Considering the long history of violence, this satisfies one group, and causes more discontent for another. To add, I think it was unwise of Trump to speak on behalf of the Palestinians because he got the Israelis input, but after not talking to the Palestinians for over two years, it was not his place to decide something that he was sure they would not like.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is fair to make a plan in the middle east with input from only one group. The middle east, especially the conflict between Israel-Palestine has been ongoing for over 100 years. Without input from both sides, this conflict will go on for another hundred years. There has been numerous attempts to end this conflict but they have all been rejected by one side. In order to end this conflict both sides have to be fully involved and both agree on a plan that is fair to both countries. This even goes for non-political conflicts that you face in everyday life, both sides have to express their input in order for a peaceful resolution to a confict.
ReplyDeleteOf course I don’t believe it’s fair to make a deal with only consulting one side. But even if the Palestinians had been consulted, I doubt a deal between current leadership, Kushner(presented by Trump but authored by Kushner), Netanyahu, and Abbas, would ever work out considering the following:
ReplyDelete1) Jared Kushner(the guy who authored Trump’s “deal of the century”) is extremely pro Israel and even has financial ties with Israel through their investment into his properties. Any deal he could made will strongly tilt toward Israel and will probably not consider much of what the Palestinians want.
2) Netanyahu, Israel’s PM, is pretty right wing, and believes in the annexation of most of the remaining Palestinian land(West Bank, Jordan Valley). I could not see him giving up land for the Arabs.
3) I don’t think the Palestinians or Israelis are ready yet to make a deal. The majority are not in favor of a two state solution, and many believe that the expansive Israeli settlements undermine the feasibility of a two state solution.
4) Any deal would probably(rightfully) include the removal of Hamas from Gaza. And I’m not sure how well they would accept that, given that they took over militarily in the first place.
I think under different American and Israeli leadership, a deal may be feasible if all sides were included. But even if Abbas accepted the current deal, he doesn’t have the support of the people, and unfortunately many would be angered and there is potential there for radicalization and increase in power of Hamas, or even another Intifada(just an idea, I couldn’t say how it would actually play out), so it just wouldn’t work out and would probably make the situation even worse.
I do not think that it is fair to make a plan in the Middle East with only input from one group. In order to make a plan that creates the best situation for all of the groups involved, all of them should try to reach a decision together. Though that may be an unrealistic goal now given how long the Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on and how bitter the two sides of gotten, it would be ideal for all groups involved to reach a decision together. I believe that the United States should try to reestablish communication with the Palestinians in order to make more fair and less one-sided decisions over how to split the Middle East. A two state solution seems favorable, it might not be possible right now.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that it's fair to make a plan in the middle east with input from only one group?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this can be fair in any way possible. Each group and people have different opinions and letting just one group, with their own specific opinion, decide seems unfair. The best way to make it fair, in my opinion, is to at least give 2 ore more groups to decide the solution this problem. The only way I can see this somewhat happening is some other superpower like the US interfering. If the US can do this, they can establish a new connection between the two and become the "neutral" during the arrangement.
Dylan Ha
I dont think it is fair to only listen to one side of the story. In this situation it is crucial to listen to both sides of the conflict in order to create a resolution acceptable to both sides. As stated in the article there has been a long history of conflict between Israel and Palestine, this makes it important for both sides to be heard as there is sure to be bias, and bias has been shown on both sides of this long time conflict. Again, it is key to listen to both sides of the conflict before reaching a resolution to ensure fairness and equality on both sides in the resolution.
ReplyDelete-Joseph Chang
Do you believe that it's fair to make a plan in the middle east with input from only one group?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that it is fair to only listen to one side of the story. In the two narrative work we did we saw how a story could be twisted and turned in favor of one side. I believe it is crucial to look at the whole story in as neutral of a way as possible in order to truly make something fair. Although it is most likely impossible to make a completely fair deal, looking at both sides is a very good way to at least be on the way to making a fair deal.
I do not believe it is fair to take into account only one group. This does not take into consideration the other perspectives in a situation. The plan highlights a group's attempt at power over the situation rather than a genuine attempt at peace because in order for the plan to succeed, it must be adhered to by all parties. From the dual narratives assignment, biased perspectives does not give a voice to any other viewpoint. In order for a true attempt at a fair deal, it has to take into account the concerns of different perspectives so that peace between parties can be better achieved.
ReplyDelete^^Victoria Ly
DeleteNo, I don't believe that it's fair to make a plan in the middle east with input from a single group. Obviously it is unfair to make a decision for a large group of people if only a minority of the people has a say in the decisions. This minority is obviously going to be biased and could create a misleading argument for a decision that wouldn't benefit the public. Creating a wider range of input could help officials get a better understanding of what the majority really wants and the decision could better reflect all types of opinions.
ReplyDelete^^Josh Koe
DeleteI don't think it is fair to make a plan that affects the future of two main groups and only have the input from one of them. To make peace, both sides need to be addressed. If only one group is being catered to in the agreements, the other group will be consequently alienated. This lessens the chance of any future negotiations.This violence can be stopped if the governments listen to the concerns both parties are trying to communicate. It will take a long time to find a plan that properly addresses the situation. It will never happen though, if the US keeps giving out rushed plans that show obvious bias.
ReplyDelete- Megan Nash
I don't think that it is fair to only take opinions from one side but it is more complicated because of the political ties and ideologies of both sides. As seen throughout history negotiations between the two cooperatively just doesn't work. Both sides of the conflict want the other completely gone, whether they say it or not, and every attempt at peace conflicts will both sides ideas. The US is a strong ally of Israel and wants to maintain the ties with Israel, so any negotiations with the US will somewhat favor Israel as negotiations with both sides might be seen as a breach of trust between the US and Israel. There is no end to conflict in the middle east and there will never be a winner.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that it's fair to make a plan in the middle east with input from only one group?
ReplyDeleteIt think is is definitely unfair to only see one side of the story and not the other. Thats not how anything should work. The other story could be totally opposite and everything has to be fair.