They held the land under military occupation. They also picked their battles, allowing the Jewish and Arab Militias to fight one another.
The Israelis and Palestinians have engaged in a prolonged conflict marked by violence, including terrorist attacks, military actions, and retaliations. Both sides have committed acts that have deepened mistrust and animosity, making peace negotiations challenging. Efforts to achieve lasting peace have been complicated by issues such as borders, security, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.
To keep peace between the colonists and the Native Americans.
Because both parties have lived upon the land for a very long time. Both have ancestors who have lived and died there and each would be offended if they were forced to leave the land of their forefathers. Furthermore, each side has their own reasoning for being entitled the land. The Palestinians had previously owned it. However, Zionists (people who believed that the Jewish people should have their own nations) exiled the Palestinians with help from the British. This is considered unjust by Palestinians. Jewish Israelis believe that, according to the Bible (Genesis ch.28 and elsewhere), they are entitled to the land of Israel because of Divine command. Secular Israelis like to use a more objective argument and claim that the Israelis took a part of the land by U.N. resolution, and a further part from the Palestinians through war, fair and square. Therefore, they have earned this land and are entitled to keep it. This is the conflict in essence, though it gets much more complicated than this. See also the attached Related Links.
Pocahontas's goal was to keep the peace between the Indian and the British
They ignored it, and to keep peace, they expanded the British army in America to 75 hundred.
to keep peace between the colonists and Native Americans
They ignored them, and expanded the British Army in America to keep peace. Please like if it helped :)
There is no particular conflict that has been termed "the Israeli-Palestinian War".If you are referring to the Jewish-Arab Engagement that went from 1947-1949 (and has been divided between the Palestinian Civil War of 1947-1948 and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949), the British policy was initially to try and keep the peace. When this proved too bloody for the British, their policy became to desist and ignore the conflict until they had withdrawn all of their soldiers.If you are referring to any one of the other ten-or-so wars and agitations in which Israelis and Palestinians have come to blows in some way, please resubmit your question either (1) properly naming the conflict or (2) providing the years in question.
Neither the Palestinians or Jews deserve the land of israel if they keep on fighting. I think that they should simply split up the land equally into two : problem solved!!!!! Then there will be two countries : Palestine and Israel and so they can live in peace.
Yes, of course. However, there is currently strong political inertia on both sides against such an interdependence. In the 1970s and 1980s, numerous Palestinians commuted to work in Israel, serving as Israel's dominant force of low-paid and low-skilled labor. Additionally, Palestinians were able to attend Israeli Arab schools, they became trained in more skilled professions, especially as doctors. From 1967-1979, Israel and the Palestinian Territories were for the other the highest-volume international trade partner with which they shared borders. Since the Intifadas in the late 1980s up to the current conflicts, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have chosen to isolate the two peoples. Most famously, Israel built the Security Fence to keep Palestinian Suicide Bombers out of mainland Israel. However, it also had the effect of making commuting between the Palestinian Territories and Israel nearly impossible, lessening connections between Palestinians and Israelis.
They were generous because the British hoped that they would be able to establish economics links with the Americans. America was a very profitable economic zone for the British, and they hoped to try and keep it that way.
There are a few general defenses:1) Arab Anti-Semitism and Arab Anti-Zionism:Arabs have consistently denied their historical wrongdoing and segregation of Jews (such as the dhimmi status, the jizya and kharaj taxes, and humiliation in general), they fail to educate their children in the virtue of tolerance (instead teaching them literalist Qur'anic interpretations which inform them that Jews are the children of swine and that jihad will not end until all Jews die), they promulgate of anti-Semitic teachings (such as the Protocols of Zion and Holocaust-Denial), and they tolerate of torture and other vast human rights abuses in their native countries. Most critically, they fail to accept the validity of a Jewish State. How can Israelis make a future with people who do not accept their past and how can Israel make peace with an adversary that fails to confer legitimacy upon them?2) Arab Intransigence: Most Israelis see the Arab governments and leaders as being the intransigent ones in negotiations, not themselves. When Egypt wanted the Sinai back for peace, Israel uprooted all of its settlements almost immediately and gave Egypt the Sinai back. If the Palestinians proposed a 1949 ceasefire borders with landswaps and foreclosed on the Right of Return for Palestinians to Israel, Israel would accept that. Arabs, however, in the Israeli estimation, would rather fight fruitlessly than accept those terms, so Israel has no choice.3) Need to Protect its People: The Israeli government has a duty to keep its citizens safe. Allowing rockets to fly over from hostile territory is unacceptable.4) Don't Appease: This argument is advocated more by the Israeli Right than the Israeli Left. They hold that every time that the Israeli government has appeased the Palestinians such as the Oslo Accords, the Unilateral Disengagement from Gaza, etc. the Palestinians have become more violent and more bellicose. They argue that the Palestinians see that the Israelis will cave and press again. Therefore, they argue that the tactic of appeasement is a failure.For Religious Jewish defenses of the State of Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians, please see the Related Question below.