FMA Global Case Study of the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict and a Comprehensive Essay on Chernobyl Disaster
Number of words: 1440
Case Study Analysis: Israeli – Palestinian Conflict
During the 1947 to 1948 civil war, this war arose due to intercommunity violence in Palestine among Arabs and Israelis in the 1920s. On a variety of levels, the battle continues today. The SPSE analysis below explains the conflict.
As one of the world’s longest-running wars, Israel’s occupancy of the Gaza Strip and West Bank has lasted five decades. Several initiatives have been undertaken as part of the Israeli-Palestinian resolution to end the issue. As early as 1897, the First Zionist Conference and the 1917 Balfour Declaration made public affirmations of Jewish native land in Palestine (Barak, 2005 pp 719 – 736). There was a tiny Jewish minority in the area, but it increased due to considerable Jewish immigrants. Tensions escalated between Jews and Arabs after the Mandate for Palestine was implemented, which placed a legally enforceable responsibility on the British government to “create a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Security, Palestinian mobility, Israeli communities, sovereignty of Jerusalem, and Palestinian freedom of return are the key concerns that have slowed progress. According to Falk (2005), several international conferences focus on problems such as historical rights, safety, and human dignity. It’s also hindered tourism in and public access to the fiercely contested areas because of the ferocity of the war.
After World War I, strong nationalism campaigns between Arabs and Jews aimed at achieving statehood for their individuals in the Middle East gave rise to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During World War I, an official British government declaration from 1917 announced support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, dubbed the Balfour Declaration. Due to a clash between these two groups that arose during the Franco-Syrian War in the 1920s, Mandatory Palestine saw a sectarian war in the 1930s and 1940s as Palestinian nationalism emerged.
Anger flared in 1936 when al-Qassem was killed by British forces at the end of 1935, leading to a nationwide strike by Arabs and a widespread boycott. Strikes quickly turned violent and led to the bloodily suppressed Arab uprising in Palestine from 1936 to 1939, which the Arabs led against both the British and the Jews (Barak, 2005 pp 719 – 736). Early 1937 saw a wave of coordinated violence that saw most Arab organizations crushed and many of their leaders expelled by British forces.
Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization teamed together in 1993 to pursue a peaceful settlement through the Oslo Peace Process. Arafat recognized Israel’s right to exist in his letter. Accords signed in Oslo in 1993 set the stage for future Israeli-Palestinian ties. In exchange for peace, Israel would progressively relinquish the authority of the Palestinian lands to the Palestinians, according to the Oslo Accord (Haushofer et al. 2010, pp 17927 – 17932). When it came to peace proposals, the United States did not make any written offers to Arafat but rather presented ideas to the Israelis that Arafat didn’t respond to. As a result, there are a variety of opinions on the suggestions that were examined.
Negotiators of the war continued to meet privately during 2000 to get a one-way solution to their respective views following the failed summit. As a result, the United States came up with its strategy to fix the difficulties. The Second Intifada, which began at the end of the year, delayed Clinton’s presentation of US ideas. Finally, on December 23, 2000, President Clinton’s called for an independent Palestinian state, with land swaps with the 1968 Israel amounting to 2% in the West Bank (Barak, 2005 pp 719 – 736). The plan claimed that “the fundamental idea is that Arab regions are Palestinian and Jewish areas are Israeli.” Security suggestions called for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state and a multinational army to guard the borders of the Palestinian territory.
Comprehensive essay: Chernobyl Disaster
A nuclear station exploded in April 1986. This marks the most dangerous disaster that has ever occur. This catastrophe took place in Ukraine. This disaster’s aftermath was somehow concealed, which was a turning point of the cold war. Scientists believe that the area around the old facility would remain uninhabitable for up to 20,000 years after it was decommissioned. A nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the former USSR, which had extensively invested in nuclear power after World War II.
However, the official figure of 31 direct deaths from the same time does not include confirmed trauma and ARS deaths, according to repeated allegations made in 2006.IAEA and Chernobyl Forum, two United Nations component organizations, dismiss such evacuee allegations as disinformation, ” radiophobia or urban legends,” In Moscow, a news conference was held. Western media coverage of Chernobyl, according to the Soviets, is terrible, but opponents believe the Soviets have done everything they can to conceal what is impossible to hide. As additional information became available, the Soviets’ heroic attempts to seal the bottom of the reactor core were ultimately successful, culminating in Moscow’s shockingly candid acknowledgment of almost incredible, arrogant mismanagement of the reactor, which led to the tragedy are all a waste of time and energy.
Before the 1986 tragedy, the Soviet Union knew the Chernobyl nuclear facility was hazardous and covered up emergencies there, according to papers released by Ukrainian authorities on the 35th anniversary of the accident. It’s still the world’s worst nuclear accident after a failed safety test at Chernobyl’s fourth reactor, located in Soviet Ukraine. After the accident, the Soviet authorities messed up their handling and tried to cover it up. Only 36 hours after the tragedy did the area’s residents get the order to leave. Ukraine’s security agency (SBU) stated in a statement on Monday that there was a radioactive leak at the facility in 1982 that was hushed up using what a KGB report at the time dubbed methods “to prevent panic and inflammatory rumors.”
Most newspapers claimed that the Chernobyl reactor’s fire had been extinguished and was under control, but there was still no word from the highest Soviet authorities. According to US media reports, a second reactor was in jeopardy, based on satellite images that seemed to reveal “hot patches.” As The Guardian put it, “So much for ‘glasnost,’ the Russian synonym for ‘openness.'” According to its commander, they chipped away at the matter, believing that Gorbachov’s worldwide public relations accomplishments had been wiped out overnight. “A second reactor is on fire,” the Daily Telegraph said. It appeared to take this conclusion from a Soviet short-wave radio operator who spoke of explosions and chaotic evacuations. Some believe Chernobyl and Libya’s bombings would bolster those who want Labour to continue its strategy of removing American nuclear bases, which may have been a reflection of the total uncertainty that Soviet quiet had sowed in the outside world (Cardis and Hatch 2011, pp 251 – 260). This report shows that inaccurate information was provided to the citizens.
No word in the British press was indifferent to the suffering of the Soviet people. However, there was nothing about British designers and technologists that would not have been saying about their Soviet counterparts. They did an excellent job with a tale that upset them from the start since it lacked essential details. Although they occasionally went overboard, the tabloids did the same for their readers. Through their thumbs, they deduced that the tragedy was far worse than Soviet officials were acknowledging. Though their language was vulgar and may have upset individuals, I doubt it was as harsh as that used by Soviets on the spot. However, media in general, and tabloid newspapers in particular, were negotiating territory with only the most rudimentary maps in hand because of Soviet secrecy. There were sure to be navigational errors.
Barak, O., 2005. The failure of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, 1993–2000. Journal of Peace Research, 42(6), pp.719-736.
Cardis, E. and Hatch, M., 2011. The Chernobyl accident—an epidemiological perspective. Clinical Oncology, 23(4), pp.251-260.
Falk, A. (2005). Fratricide in the Holy Land: A psychoanalytic view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Terrace Books.
Haushofer, J., Biletzki, A. and Kanwisher, N., 2010. Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(42), pp.17927-17932.
Renn, O., 1990. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), pp.151-167.
Saenko, V., Ivanov, V., Tsyb, A., Bogdanova, T., Tronko, M., Demidchik, Y. and Yamashita, S., 2011. The Chernobyl accident and its consequences. Clinical Oncology, 23(4), pp.234-243.
Shafir, G., 1996. Land, labor, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s origins, 1882-1914 (Vol. 20). Univ of California Press.
Sharoni, S., 1995. Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The politics of women’s resistance. Syracuse University Press.