The war between the Palestine and Israel has been at war. The sixty-year old conflict in the region has brought suffering from wanderings and political polemics in the region. On several occasions, both the Arabs and Palestine from one side and Israel on the other side have decided to go through a peace process to help restore the peace and stability in the region. For several years, presumable twenty-one years since the decision was reached about the peace deal has seen the process to be an object of failure. Palestine and Israel to be specific has put reasonable effort to help bring to an end the war between then with the signing of a peace accord, which was referred to as the Oslo peace accord in 1993. This was followed by mysterious deaths of two leaders who succeeded in the signing of the peace accord (Phyllis 8).
The peace and stability of the region has been a major concern to the world with several talks by the world leaders being held in several occasions that at one point considered to be fruitful but end up to be a failure. The unite nation general assembly and its fifteen-member security council has passed resolutions relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1947 with the security council alone passing over two hundred resolutions that has not bear any fruits regarding the conflict in the region. There is an understanding that the Security Council is responsible for maintaining of the international peace but this has not been so since part of their resolutions does not solve the situation but only bring about many questions and often branded as taking sides with another. For instance, one of the most important Security Council’s resolutions in 1967 issued when Israel captured Sinai from Egypt, .it called for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the recently captured territory and a just settlement of the refugee problem. The resolution did not give what a “just” solution would be for the Palestinian refugee since it did not affirm their national rights. This was a direct reflection of the united state influence on the process, which limited the Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.
Most of the UN resolutions have been accused of offering solutions to one party, which the other party always disagree with and this always bring about more conflict between the parties at war. The resolution 242 in 1967 remains the basis of most peace plans for the region and it emphasizes on the self-governance, protective and political independence of every state in the area. The resolution has provided that a state should exercise their right to live in peace within the secure and recognized boundaries. This has brought about more controversies between Israel and Palestine. For example, the dispute over Jerusalem between the Palestinian and Israel in 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited the site of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, numerous deaths and injuries were noted mostly among the Palestinians. The visit to the site was regarded as away to provoke the Palestinians (Fadi 11).
UN security personnel have been accused on several occasions for involving directly in the conflict, for example in may 2004, the Israel said that the Palestinian militant for getaway following a military engagement in Gaza used the UN ambulance. Several accusations has been made to the UN for supporting the Palestinians directly, for instance, the Israel complained about peter Hansen’s (Head UNRWA) comments about the inclusion of Hamas members in the UNRWA payroll as not illegal claiming that they are not militants (El-Hasan 43).
Many Arab leaders on the other hand has come out loud to point fingers at the countries that are believed to have direct influence to the UN as colluding in protecting the Jews. This has become evident during the Durban Review Conference (April 2009) when the Iran president Mohmoud Ahmadinejad said that, some powerful nations under the pretext of protecting the Jews have made a nation homeless by military expeditions and inversion. He went ahead and said that these countries have developed a racist rule in Palestinian territory. The Iran president accuses the Security Council for endorsing a super regime, which they for a long time defended and let it commit any kind of crime.
The UN has been for a long time by-passed by the US on the peace talks, which raises questions on who is superior between the US government and the UN. The best example is when the UN Security Council voted to condemn the excessive force that Israel uses on the civilians; the US government was quick to disagree and claimed that the resolution has taken the UN out in the role of negotiations. This was evidently seen during the 1993 Oslo process that was sponsored by the US, which defined the limits of accepted diplomacy with only accepted discussions within the discussion bracket. The US has kept the Israel-Palestine peace talk under their control a role that Worthington claimed to be an “honest broker”.
Conclusion
The various efforts by the UN to restore peace and bring to an end the crisis between the Israel and Palestine has been widely hindered by the constant involvement of the US in trying to occasionally siding with the Israel. This is a move that is widely criticized by the Arab leaders since they argue that the US involvement does not promote peace but only call for more violence in the region. The US is widely criticized for influencing the resolutions by the UN Security Council limiting the UN efforts to enact a peace deal between the Israel and Palestine.PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT!
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!
