The conflict between Israel and Palestinians is a century-long conflict. This conflict began with the institution of Israel in Palestine, at the heart of the Arab world. Since then, Palestine and other Arab Nations have refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign State, whereas other nations have equally refused to recognize the Palestinian State as a country. Since then, there have been several peace accords, as well as efforts to have a one-state or two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The one-state solution would see Israel merge the Gaza Strip and West Bank into a single democracy shared by both Palestinian Arabs, and Jews. On the other hand, the two-state solution assumes that Israelis and Palestinians have irreconcilable issues and hence, must be set apart. The first one-state solution has been greatly opposed, where the second option seems to be the most accepted approach towards ending the conflict. Israel is the only country with Jewish population situated in the East side of the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinians are Arab population that hails from the Israel territory refers the region to as Palestine and want to flag a state under that name on all or part of the territory. The Israelites-Palestinian conflict is between Israelites and Palestinians fighting over who will get what land and how manage and control it. This conflict is regarded as the most complicated issue of recent history. The conflict is over a century old now, and has caused deaths, destructions, as well as sufferings of many people. The conflict has triggered innumerable resolutions and inquiries by the United Nations, League of Nations among other international bodies (Caplan, 2011). Surprisingly, despite all these inquiries, these two parties portray no sign of impending resolution. If anything, the conflict has seemed to worsen and become more complicated as it is now becoming entangled with terrorism, Western hegemony and Islamism. For centuries, there was peace and tranquility. All through the 19th century, the Palestine territory was inhabited by a multicultural population: approximately 86% Muslims, 10% Christians and 4% Jewish coexisting harmoniously. Toward the end of the 18th century, a certain group known as Zionists decided to colonize this territory. This group was not so big because it represented the minority of the Jewish population (Harms & Ferry, 2017). They aimed to establish a Jewish homeland, and before settling in Palestine, they had considered locations in both the Americas and Africa. Initially, their settlement in the Jewish land did not in any triggered problem, until when their numbers continued to increase that it alarmed the indigenous majority. Then, conflict elapsed, with growing waves of hostility. Hitler's ascending to authority together with Zionist actions to incapacitate efforts to consign Jewish immigrants in western nations, enhanced Jewish migration to Palestine, and the war escalated. Another thing that came up was the UN Partition Plan. In 1947, the UN resolute to arbitrate for the first time in this escalated conflict. However, instead of abiding by the standard of "self-determination of peoples," where citizens are allowed to form their framework of administration, the United Nations opted to adhere to the medieval technique in which a foreign authority divide and controls other people's territory (Harms & Ferry, 2017). Under substantial pressure by the Zionist, the United Nations decided to entitle 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish land, regardless of their number representing only thirty percent of the entire demographics and owned only 7% of the territory. The 1947-1949 conflict resulted in a devastating situation between these two conflicting parties. It is well understood that this war involved five Arab armies, but something that less commonly known is that during the war, Zionist forces were more than all Palestinian and Arab armies combined, in a ratio of 2:3. Noticeably, Arab combats did not attack Israel (Harms & Ferry, 2017). All wars were grounded on territory that was deemed to be Palestinians land. Also, it is imperative to understand that Arabs combats joined the war after the Zionist army had executed sixteen massacres among being the grisly one that claimed lives of more than hundred men, children, and women at Deir Yassin. By the end of this fight, Israel emerged as victorious, having conquered more than 78 percent of Palestinians. Three-quarters of Palestinians had been put under the compulsory rule of displacement and were now immigrants, more than five hundred villages and towns had been ruined, and a new plot was adopted where every river, city, and hill obtained a new, Hebrew name. All remnants of Palestine's traditions were removed. For many years now, Israel has shorn of the presence of such people. Remember the 1967 conflict and USS Liberty, something that added sour into the situation. In 1967, Israel defeated more territories. After the "Six Day War" in which the Israeli combats executed a more devastating raid on Egypt, Israel took over the final twenty-two percent of Palestine that they had occupied it in 1948. This place was known as the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Based on the fact that it is inadmissible under the international law to obtain land by force, these are acquired territories but not legally owned by Israeli (Harms & Ferry, 2017). Furthermore, Israel obtained some parts of Egypt and Syria. In addition, by the course of the Six Day War, Israel evaded US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, a raid that claimed more than 200 lives of American combats. President Johnson asked for rescue flights, indicating that he did not want to retaliate. Though it is reported by few presses, a High-Level Commission which was then headed by Admiral Moorer viewed this raid as an act of war against Americans. There are various factors that led to the current conflict between Palestine and the Israelites. However, there are two factors that surpass the rest. To start with, there has been a consistent inescapably destabilizes effect of attempting to preserve an ethnically privileged nation, specifically when it is more of alien derivation. The initial inhabitants of what is currently Israel was ninety-six percent Christians and Muslims, but, these immigrants are not allowed to go back to their origin, as described by them as Jewish land (Caplan, 2011). Note that those living in Israel are also faced with systematic discrimination. Again, Israel did not relent on their military effort to occupy and confiscate privately possessed land in West Bank and have power over Gaza region. A considerable number of Palestinians are detained in Israel as prisoners. Only some of them have been granted fair trial, and substantial violence and torment is something usual to them. Palestine borders including internal borders are now under the control of Israeli combats. Frequently, men, women, and children are beaten, strip searched, deprived off their right to good health by being restricted from reaching hospitals (Harms & Ferry, 2017). More surprisingly, food, water, and medicines are blocked from getting their way to Gaza, resulting in escalated humanitarian issues. Israeli forces are invading almost daily, killing, kidnapping and injuring inhabitants. As per the Oslo peace accords of 1993, these lands ought to be regarded as Palestine state. Nevertheless, after decades of Israel confiscating land and condition consistently worsening, the Palestinians rebelled. Something that resulted in "Intifada" that started toward the end of September 2000 (Caplan, 2011). The United States has spent a lot of money in support of Israel. It is evident that the U.S is giving an average of $10 million daily. The main reason for this huge provision is special-interest lobbying. Many Americans are now warning against this expenditure. These are the main factors that triggered the current war: an introduction of inappropriate government policies, external forces, population demographics, perception, media and propaganda, and economics. Certainly, there are many undone things that need to be done and there many things that can be done to shed light for the end of this conflict. The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 and were designed to foster confidence and establish trust between Palestinians and Israelis with an attempt of bringing peace to the region. However, less than a decade later, the region was swallowed in a war, which was referred to as the second Intifada. Both sides have since blamed each other for the fail of the accords to bring peace to the region as was initially intended, sighting each other's bad faith and ulterior motives towards the accords. For instance, according to Yaalon (2017), the main reason that failed negotiations was Palestinian's reluctance to recognize the sovereignty of the Jewish state of Israel, in any boundaries. According to him, the Palestinians have had an institutionalized negative idea against the Palestinians, something that makes peace within the region impossible to achieve. However, other individuals have argued that whereas the Palestinians’ conflict was a contributory factor to the war, the Israeli government reneged on their side of the deal. This was further made impossible by the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, who heavily supported the accords with aims of peace. Other arguments around the failure of the peace accords were the peace expectations that each party in the conflict had. For instance, the Palestinians hoped that the expansions of Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis were to withdraw from the Gaza and West Bank regions, giving the Palestinian Authority more than 90 percent control of the region, which would set a stage for the complete withdrawal of Israelis to the 1967 borders. The second expectation was that there would be an increase in economic development on the Palestinian side, which would lift the living standards of Palestinians, most of whom were in crushing poverty. This would help narrow the gap, of living standards between them and the Israelis who most Palestinians found enraging and humiliating (Yaalon, 2017). On the other hand, the Israelis expectations were mostly centered on security. This was because years and years Palestinian terrorism had resulted in the fear that allowing Palestinians to control Gaza would leave Israel exposed to Palestinian hostiles, who would use these territories as bases for attacks as well as those within the Israeli borders. However, the quid pro quo state set by the Oslo accords, or rather land and economics offered for security was never achieved, since the autonomy the Palestinians expected never materialized, and subsequent expansion of Israel in the Gaza and West Bank regions instead of halting such activities. On the other hand just as Israel had imagined, terrorist and terror were institutionalized in the regions, with the Palestine Authority doing so little to help stop Palestinian terrorists (Miller, 2016; Yaalon, 2017). As Yaalon (2017) explains settlement is not the problem when it comes to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. Instead, as he expounds, it is because Arabs, leave alone Palestinians, have refused to let Israeli Jews settle anywhere near the initial Jewish territory. Additionally, a onestate solution, which is largely supported by leftists and Palestinians, is unlikely to work since the Palestinians embody innate hate towards the Jews, hence cannot live side to side with them. Such a state would accord Palestinians a majority, which would give the more democratic a power, something that does not sit well with the Israelis. Yaalon (2017) further state that, it is impossible to believe that the Palestinians will keep up their promise when all they have wanted is to cleanse the area of Jews. As such, while Palestinians, argue that having Israeli settlements within areas set aside for the Palestinians is the cause of the conflict, their hate, and misconceptions towards the Israelis, is what causes conflict, and in the actual sense underlies Israeli fear of a united Jewish Palestinian democratic state, although from an angle, it is evident that the Palestinians would want to have a united states, which in effect would give them power over the Jews, who they hate so much (Miller, 2016). The two-state solution would see a Palestinian state and a Jewish exist side by side. This is what most Israelis, and much of the world directly or indirectly involved in the peace process between the two parties, would want to see. However, the Palestinians have divided opinion since where a significant number supports such a move an equally significant number has an issue with this. However, Yaalon (2017) argues that while this offers a juicy end to the conflict where each party would be a master of their fates, this is far from reality and would in effect be a disaster to the Palestinians. For instance, the center of the Palestinian economy is based on its close ties to Israel, and severing such ties would see the Palestinians sink to even deeper levels of poverty. A large section of the Palestinian society is employed directly or indirectly by the Israeli firms and businesses. Additionally, despite the conflict, Palestinians rely on exports and utility infrastructure such as electricity and water from Israel (Miller, 2016; Yaalon, 2017). The Palestinian Authority converged with the Israeli police and military force to fight terror, is quite a weak in duty; hence it would be subdued by the militia resulting in the deterioration of security within the region. These among other reasons make a two-state solution and subsequent full separation of the region a bad idea. The issue as to whether Israel and Palestinians should separate or remain as one entity remains a critical issue towards the stability of the region. As Yaalon states, for peace to materialize within that region, the Palestinians must change their point of view towards the Israeli for a one-state solution to materialize. However, it is evident that individuals are pat the one-state solution phase and are instead looking for a two-state solution which in effect would result in the formation of a Jewish State alongside a Palestinian state. However, it is impossible to achieve given the danger that such a separation would oppose both Palestinians and Israelis security-wise and economically. Yossi Klein Halevi, an American-born Jewish writer and journalist wrote the New York Times Best Seller, Letters to my Palestinian Neighbor, to create a possible framework to navigate peace in the Middle East. He also came to speak at Loyola Marymount in November, 2018 and touched on points about the media’s role in people’s perceptions of the conflict as well as the role of mutual recognition in the conflict. analyzed the role of media in people’s perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Media, especially coming from Palestinian and other global authorities, assault Jewish history by denying any Jewish history in the state of Israel, claiming that this history is of “Zionist invention”. However, until both sides recognize mutual legitimacy, there is no chance of peace in the Middle East, as this conflict is rooted deeply in religion and perceived on both ends as infallible. He also argues that calling Israel a “Jewish state” neglects the diversity of citizens in Israel and needs to do a better job at recognizing all of its citizens. He encourages the partition of Israel and recognizes that both the Palestinians and Israelis both have the right to the entire piece of land. Although neither side wants to partition, this may be the only solution to this existential conflict of intangibles. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment