The Israelites and Palestinians have been involved in an unending conflict for several years over the Israel land. Both sides of the conflict claim ownership and occupation of the land and since none of them is ready to give in her demands, the land has continued to bring about a major dispute. Several nations and organizations have shared their views on the creation of Israel state on the disputed land. Both sides of the debate have concrete facts suggesting why either Palestinians or the Israelites should be allowed to own and occupy the land.
The Zionists have made several contributions concerning the creation of an Israelite state. Looking critically at several of the material facts that have been presented and analyzing them objectively, there are several similarities and differences arising from the debate (Laqueur, pp 82). Comparisons between the Zionist arguments in favor of creating an Israeli state The land under dispute and on which an Israel state should be created is their birthplace and they therefore have each and every right to have their state established on this land.
It is on this land that the Israelites strongly attach national, religious and spiritual identity. It therefore constitutes a very significant aspect of their ways of life as well as their heritage and origin. The Israelites should have their state established on this piece of land because it is on it they attained their independence and went ahead to create a strong culture which is not only significant nationally, but also universally.
The people of Israel are thus more attached to this land than the Palestinians and they should therefore be allowed to create an Israel state on this particular land (Laqueur, pp 83). Even after the Israel people were exiled form their birthplace, they remained true and loyal to the ways of life and cultural aspects they had learned from it. This clearly shows that the Israelites have always had significant interest in this land. Throughout their period of exile, the Israelites prayed and hoped that they would one day go back to this land and fully restore their national freedom.
Propelled by the great historic association to this land, the Jews continuously strove for centuries to return to the land of their forefathers and eventually regain their original statehood. In fact, in the recent decades, Jews have returned to this land in great numbers. It did not take them long before they could fully revive their original language, repossessed the wilderness, built villages and cities and also established an ever growing and a vigorous community, which has its own cultural and economic life.
Furthermore, they were ready to reclaim the land peacefully, but due to the adamant of the Palestinians and the great value the Israelites have always attached to the land, a conflict was more or less inevitable. If the Israelites are denied the chance to create their state on this land, a lot of injustice will have been committed to them. For centuries, they have worked extremely hard while on foreign lands to one day reclaim their great great fathers’ land and build their nation on it (Laqueur, pp 84).
Differences between the arguments in favor of the creation of an Israeli state The Zionist arguments have largely ignored the great attachment the Palestinians have on the disputed parcel of land. While their arguments have borrowed largely from the historical attachment the Israelites have on the land, the opponents argue that during the long period of time the Israelites were away, the Palestinians occupied the land. Even though both communities attach strong religious beliefs to the land, they both have different religious attachments to the land (Laqueur, pp 86).
The argument by Zionist concerning repossession of the land through peaceful means contrasts what is actually taking place. Both sides are reluctant to use peaceful negotiations and they have instead opted to apply force. Israel has in several occasions acted against various agreements. This is a great difference because while Zionists argue that the peaceful means should be used in reclaiming the land under dispute, non-peaceful means have been used for several decades (Laqueur, pp 87). Conclusion
The historic land of the Israelites continues to be a major source of conflict in the region as both the Palestinians and Israelites are adamant in giving in to each others demands. Several arguments have been put forward regarding the creation of an Israeli state on the disputed land. The Zionists have proposed several arguments favoring the creation of a sovereign state for the Israeli people. Most of the arguments used by the Zionists focus on the great historical attachment the Israelites have over the disputed land.
Zionists argue that the piece of land belongs to the Israelites as it constitutes their birthplace and origin. On the other hand, Palestinians argue that the land belongs to them as they have occupied it for centuries when the Israelites were in exile. The Zionists therefore do not consider the great interest the Palestinians have over the same piece of land. Work cited: Laqueur, Walter; the Israeli-Arab reader: a documentary history of the Middle East conflict, Bantam Books, 1976.