Why is israel and palestine in conflict

Peace talks have been taking place on and off for more than 25 years, but so far have not solved the conflict. In short, the situation isn't going to be sorted out any time soon. The most recent peace plan, prepared by the United States when Donald Trump was president, was called "the deal of the century" by Israel's then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But it was been dismissed by the Palestinians as one-sided and never got off the ground. Any future peace deal will need both sides to agree to resolve complex issues. He's seen previous wars end like this before: "Similar things have been said by both sides in claiming victory and then essentially the seeds of the next conflict are sown.

Correction 21st June An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the US as recognising Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem and this has been amended to instead explain that the US recognises the city as Israel's capital. Listen to Newsbeat live at and weekdays - or listen back here. Israel-Gaza ceasefire holds despite Jerusalem clash. The child victims of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Can the Jewish settlement issue be resolved? Why Jerusalem matters. Palestinian Nakba explained in and words.

Palestinian territories profile. Image source, Getty Images. A year-old issue. The creation of Israel and the 'Catastrophe'. An early United Nations plan to give each group part of the land failed, and Israel and the surrounding Arab nations fought several wars over the territory.

Today, the West Bank is nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority and is under Israeli occupation. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, an Islamist fundamentalist party, and is under Israeli blockade but not ground troop occupation. Though the two-state plan is clear in theory, the two sides are still deeply divided over how to make it work in practice. Most observers think this would cause more problems than it would solve, but this outcome is becoming more likely over time for political and demographic reasons.

Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.

Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. The Palestinian BDS call asks international civil society groups and individuals to use boycott, divestment, and sanction tactics until Israel meets its obligations under international law to:. Supporters of the call include those who support 1 state, 2 states, a confederation or some other configuration— but we all agree Israel must recognize the fundamental rights listed above.

Jewish Voice for Peace is proud to be a part of the global, Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to end Israeli human rights violations. As signatories to the BDS call, we will continue to focus on those BDS campaigns we feel are most effective in building a broad-based movement for change. View our Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions organizing page to start a campaign or connect with local activists.

Pinkwashing is an explicit strategy taken up in recent years by the government of Israel to portray Israel as a leader in gay rights and a gay tourism destination to improve its human rights image while deflecting attention away from the extreme violence of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Zionism is violence. The union later deleted the tweet and apologized. I received many of these petitions. T he recent equation of African American oppression and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been hailed as a triumph of intersectionality, whose proponents aim to build international solidarity across barriers of class, race, gender, and nation. And sometimes, they do.

But in the current case, the theory has been used or, I would argue, misused to occlude complex realities, negate history, prevent critical thinking, and foster juvenile simplifications. A truly intersectional approach would incorporate the realization that, while Israel is far more powerful than the Palestinians, it is an often besieged minority within the larger Arab and Muslim worlds—something of which even the most left-wing Israelis are acutely aware.

By Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas—everyone. An intersectional left—or a simply honest one—would not delicately turn away from the religious sectarianism, violent repression, and anti-feminism of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Instead, what we now have is a kind of deformed intersectionality—intersectionality lite—in which the theory has been robbed of its challenging nuances and flattened into a starkly reductionist insistence that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Manichean.

Right-wing American supporters of Israel—including many members of AIPAC, for which the Jewish state is a perpetually innocent dream palace—are equally facile, and willfully blinkered, in their views. There is another problem with intersectionality, at least in the way it is now being used. But there is no intersection between American Blacks and Palestinians. The moral significance of solidarity is that it extends solidarity to people with whom you have no intersection.

Intersectionality is an entirely different idea from internationalism. And in the Manichean imagination—and this, I think, is its greatest sin, if I can use that word—the democratic forces within Israel, both Jewish and Arab, are rendered literally invisible, as if by a perverse magic trick. It is extremely hard to figure out how to extend solidarity—in real, not rhetorically grandiose terms—to Syrians and Afghans ; to democracy activists in China, Nicaragua, and Hong Kong ; to horrifically endangered peoples such as the Uyghurs and Yazidis and Rohingya.

Ending the occupation, and strengthening endangered democratic institutions in Israel, are goals that rank high on the list of political urgencies for some of us. In the current, often bewildering international context, the venomous attacks on Israel qua Israel offer a seductively easy, morally antiseptic—and, I would add, appallingly self-absorbed—way to intervene in foreign affairs.

The hysterical hyperbole, the self-referential projections, the lazy conflations, the warped histories that abound today: All substitute for solidarity. What is needed, I believe, is an entry into the world of political thought, whose foundation is the ability to make distinctions within the context of history rather than to crush them.

Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic.