Palestinian Answer
All of the nation that was once Palestine, a land holy to all 3 major monotheistic religions. They want to control it as if it was theirs, given the land was originally the Palestinian Arab's land. The Israeli Jews claim that the land was theirs a long time ago, however, they are kicking the rightful Palestinian civilians that live their innocently to claim a land that's not theirs.
Israeli Answer
Israel is a diverse country and home to a vast number of opinions. There are certainly those who wish to control all of the land of the British Mandate of Palestine, but that is not the majority. The majority of Israelis wish to control the area inside the 1949 borders with a few land-swaps with the Palestinians to provide for more defensible and realistic borders. For most Israelis, the question is not about land-control, it is for peaceful borders and peaceful neighbors.
It honestly depends on perspective. The Arabs claimed that the Israelis started it for having the audacity to realize their dreams for creating an independent country. The Israelis claimed that the Arabs started it for having the audacity to violently try to repress their dreams to create an independent country. As for what particular event started the conflict, every person would claim something else.
The United States does not have a right to the Israelis' homeland. There is nothing to defend.
Not every Israeli thinks the same way and you can find a wide variety of opinions across the Israeli political and social spectrum. Some Israelis think that the Palestinians are to blame and that the Palestinians as a group and Arabs as a whole cannot imagine the possibility that someone other than them has a right to govern any area in the Southern Levant. There are other Israelis who think that the entire conflict would end if Israel would only retreat from the Occupied Territories in the West Bank and withdraw all of the settlements. Most Israeli opinion, though, is somewhere in the middle, faulting both Palestinian Militants and Israeli Government Intransigence.
Zionism is one of many contributing factors that led to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The reason for this is that Zionism is the nationalistic philosophy that led to Israel's creation. Without Zionism, there would be no Israel and therefore the conflict would not have existed. However, without Arab Nationalism, universal Anti-Semitism, and inequality between Jews and Muslims in Arab countries, there would never have been a reason for conflict either.
Israelis do not celebrate Christmas. If they would, they would be Christians. :)
This question is divisive and so you may get conflicting answers.Answer 1No. It is a conflict between ideologies. The land-issue is just a diversion from the actual goal, which is to remove Jews and their State from the Middle East.Answer 2Partially. In order to resolve whether a conflict is over is exclusively over a certain piece of land, you can ask the question: if one side got all of the land that they wanted would there be peace. In the Morocco-Algeria Sands War of 1981-1982, there would be (as each just wanted control of a small piece of land). In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there would still be sectarian conflicts, even if the land was returned. However, having access to the land and control over it is certainly among the aims of both sides.The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is primarily a nationalistic conflict, between two camps of peoples: Israelis (Jews, Israeli Arabs, Bedouins, Druze, Circassians, and others on the one side) and Palestinians (Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and others on this side) who identify with specific national governments and governing ideologies. This is similar to other conflicts between nations, such as between India and Pakistan where Indians and Pakistanis identify by loyalty to their countries and those countries' governing ideologies. Part of nationalistic identity is a view of where their borders are and in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Israelis and Palestinians do not agree on where the borders should be between the two countries (or even whether there should be two countries).
Most people would find this to be self-evident. With the exception of a few, everybody hopes and dreams for a day when everyone can come home after a hard day's work and raise kids without the fear of recriminations, retaliations, bombs, or hateful rhetoric. Only a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict can do that for the Israelis and Palestinians.
When was the last time that a nation fought a war and then was told they should be a good sport and give back what they fought and died to win- never- only the Israelis have been treated in such a way. The issue is that the UN Resolution 242 which established the Armistice would be conditioned on a future piece treaty which would see Israelis leave occupied territories.
It depends entirely on the "they". If "they" refers to the Arabs, they were trying to wipe Israel off of the map. If "they" refers to the Israelis, they were trying to effectively defend their country. Neither the Arabs nor Israel foresaw that the war would be such an incredibly lopsided conflict and that Israel would be so victorious.
In the 1700s France and England were in conflict over which of them would control North America. There were multiple battles over the years that lead to an all-out war in 1754.
The answer depends on whether you take a Palestinian viewpoint or an Israeli viewpoint. Palestinians allege that Israel is occupying the Gaza Strip and in so doing murdering Palestinians. Israelis allege that they would prefer to leave Gaza alone, but are drawn into the conflict by the constant barrage of rockets and attacks. The bottom line is that the killing will not stop until both sides are willing to accept a peaceful solution to the conflict.
I would access support and advice for resolving a conflict by seeking guidance from a trusted mentor or supervisor when the situation escalates beyond my control. Ideally, I would do this as soon as I recognize the conflict is affecting productivity or relationships, ensuring timely intervention. Additionally, I would consider utilizing formal resources, such as HR or conflict resolution services, for structured support. Engaging in open communication and seeking external perspectives can provide valuable insights and solutions.