Ideology Clash in Israel | Final

During the year of 1948 in the Middle East fresh out of a territorial-war a country, Israel, was born. The conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs, which was long and drawn out, prevented the two ethnic groups residing in the land of Palestine from becoming one.   In 1947, the United Nations adopted the land belonging to the Palestine  and handed it to the Jewish people. Thus starting  the war between the Israelis and Arabs. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which started because of past generations’ dispute over land, created an oppressive society in the country of Israel that strongly influences new generations today by preventing their ideologies from achieving a peaceful state (Haffar 24).

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict started as a fight for the land; however it evolved into a war of religion and culture. If the land were the only factor in this war, it would possible to resolve the dispute with a separate of land. As the author, Aryeh Eldad states in the article “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a war of religion, not the territory” this is a war of religion , a clash of ideologies.Furthermore, to Muslims, the land of Israel is considered “Waqf” land. Waqf is land that has been entrusted to the Muslim people by their God.  The Jews also see the Israel as the promise land (Hellinger and Londin 104). Both the Israelis and Palestinians feel deeply entitled to the land due to promises by their God. Having control over the land has become rooted into the culture of the two create a clash of culture.

Generation after generation, the hatred between the two factions increased and metamorphosed into racism against the other’s culture. As the Palestinian author Mahmoud Darwish expresses in his poem “Identity Card” he was being oppressed by his Israeli government. The condition that the Israeli society put not only Darwish, but all Arabs are dehumanizing and oppressive (Haffar 54). As a result of their unjust treatment, Darwish, and other Arabs became angry. In fact, in his poem, he states:

Write down!

I am an Arab

You have stolen the orchards of my ancestors

And the land which I cultivated

Along with my children

And you left nothing for us

Except for these rocks…

So will the State take them?

As it has been said?!

Therefore!

Write down on the top of the first page:

I do not hate people

Nor do I encroach

But if I become hungry

The usurper’s flesh will be my food

Beware…

Beware…

Of my hunger

And my anger! (894-895)

This statement reveals the built-up anger Darwish felt towards his government-oppressors. He also writes about where his anger started  building from. Even in present day Israel the treacherous of the past are influencing the thought and actions of present-day Israelis and Arab

Overall the segregation of culture is not the only defect in the country of Israel. They  are also home to one of the worst economies in the world know as the Gaza Strips (open Democracy).

The Israelis do not only fight in a contest for the Gaza Strip, even though so much death has been recorded in the region over the years. They fight because of the hatred that they have for the A , because they do not like to be controlled and because of their religion that they believe call on them to fight those who oppose them. They want to destroy the U.S. because they hate the freedom, opportunities, democratic institutions, a way of life, and the Judeo-Christian heritage (Haffar 15). This hatred has become quite civilizational a nd is rooted in the illiberal, intolerant, misogynist, anti-modernist and anti-scientific culture that they live out and their Muslim religion.

Since September 11, 2001, and after the war on terror, the idea of the existence of a clash between two of

In the modern times, especially in the 21^st Century, the clash has also become one of the identities. This is more serious in the case of dual identities. So many Jews who are not living in Israel have a strong identification of themselves with the Jewish state. And for most being Jewish is equivalent to being Zionist (open Democracy). This means that they show allegiance to Israel state. But this does not imply that all Jews have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship. For this reason, an American Jew, British Jew or even a French  Jew must be loyal to his or her own country of residency and citizenship, but is also loyal to Israel. In this case, there is a dual identity. Due to their close alliance, clashes between these countries and Israel are mostly not existent, and hence the clashes between the national identities are equally immaterial, this implies that the dual identity retains its cohesiveness (Hellinger and Londin 98).

The case of Muslims in the West is comparable but is also significantly unalike. Many millions of them have settled and become citizens in their adopted countries. Dissimilar to Jews however, they are not indigenous but immigrants or for recent cases, asylum seekers. Equal to the norm for migrants, the leading generation holds strong links and kinship with its origins in terms of country, region, language, ethnicity, religion and culture (Cho 43). Quite interesting  and counter-intuitive is the fact that such strong links and affinities have been handed down to a significant extent to the succeeding generations by some groups, though this is not done by all groups (Baram 55).

By doing this, they adopt strong dual identities to an extent that the identity that is attached to the motherland precedes that of the country and society of residence and citizenship.

The contention here is that this has grown and succeeded in becoming a widespread occurrence among so many Muslims in the West, which implies that their most significant and important indicator of identity is to their religion and extensively to Muslim countries and lands, summing up to the global umma (Open Democracy). It can, therefore, be concluded that any actual harm done to the Muslim faith and lands, or even one that is just perceived, is felt quite intensively. In addition, it is just as a natural corollary, with equally great animosity, which is shown towards those who commit such harm. When such animosity gets extreme, it transforms into Islamism and an intense Islamic identity. This, as witnessed since 9/11, can in its extremity engender violent opposition, which is jihadist behavior (inc.).

Work Cited

Baram, Amir. The Gaza Effect. [London?]: Royal College of Defence Studies, 2009. Print.

Cho, A. ‘Commitments, Ideology Clash Over DOE Research Spending ‘. Science 334.6057 (2011): 754-755. Web.

Haffar, Ahmad R. Israel And The Palestinians Israel And The Palestinians: Reflections On The Clash Of Two National Movements. Shlomo Avineri’. Journal of Palestine Studies 2.1 (1972): 120-127. Web.

Hellinger, Moshe, and Yossi London. ‘The Socio-Economic Ideology Of Religious Zionism In Israel: 1995—2007.’ Journal of Political Ideologies 17.1 (2012): 87-106. Web.

inc., MMN. ‘Home / Headlines / The Clash Thesis: A Failing Ideology? – Media Monitors Network (MMN). Usa.mediamonitors.net. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2015.

Open Democracy, ‘How The Clash Between Islamism And Zionism Not Only Affects The Middle East But Also The West’. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2015.

Palestinians

This is a fragment.

Your lack of punctuation makes this a run-on sentence.

This sentence started out beautifully and has deteriorated.

More analysis! More context to this poem!

Who is they? Israel’s economy is not bad. Palestine’s is.

The Israelis hate America?

Israelis do not hate America. America has been a huge supporter of Israel.

What does this mean? I’m confused by this paragraph. I don’t know what to make of it.

Do you know who Samuel Huntington is? I don’t feel like his theories are being well used here.

This is plagiarism. You’re not quoting Cho. Also, you need quotation marks.

This comes from this website: https://www.opendemocracy.net/rumy-hasan/how-clash-between-islamism-and-zionism-not-only-affects-middle-east-but-also-west

This is in your works cited page, but you attribute the quote incorrectly.

What is this?

All of this is plagiarized. This is cited incorrectly because it is ALL paraphrased without using the proper source. Cho is not the author of this source. Additionally, this is an enormous amount of information you are passing off without any original analysis.

I cannot accept this without substantial revisions.

0/100

There is no original thought after the 3rd page. This essay is unacceptable.

I’m very confused by this source. I’m looking it up, and it doesn’t seem at all relevant to your essay. Where you are citing it also seems misplaced. Did you get this off of Ebscohost? I think you’re misquoting this.

Ideology Clash in Israel | Final

During the year of 1948 in the Middle East fresh out of a territorial-war a country, Israel, was born. The conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs, which was long and drawn out, prevented the two ethnic groups residing in the land of Palestine from becoming one.   In 1947, the United Nations adopted the land belonging to the Palestine  and handed it to the Jewish people. Thus starting  the war between the Israelis and Arabs. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which started because of past generations’ dispute over land, created an oppressive society in the country of Israel that strongly influences new generations today by preventing their ideologies from achieving a peaceful state (Haffar 24).

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict started as a fight for the land; however it evolved into a war of religion and culture. If the land were the only factor in this war, it would possible to resolve the dispute with a separate of land. As the author, Aryeh Eldad states in the article “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a war of religion, not the territory” this is a war of religion , a clash of ideologies.Furthermore, to Muslims, the land of Israel is considered “Waqf” land. Waqf is land that has been entrusted to the Muslim people by their God.  The Jews also see the Israel as the promise land (Hellinger and Londin 104). Both the Israelis and Palestinians feel deeply entitled to the land due to promises by their God. Having control over the land has become rooted into the culture of the two create a clash of culture.

Generation after generation, the hatred between the two factions increased and metamorphosed into racism against the other’s culture. As the Palestinian author Mahmoud Darwish expresses in his poem “Identity Card” he was being oppressed by his Israeli government. The condition that the Israeli society put not only Darwish, but all Arabs are dehumanizing and oppressive (Haffar 54). As a result of their unjust treatment, Darwish, and other Arabs became angry. In fact, in his poem, he states:

Write down!

I am an Arab

You have stolen the orchards of my ancestors

And the land which I cultivated

Along with my children

And you left nothing for us

Except for these rocks…

So will the State take them?

As it has been said?!

Therefore!

Write down on the top of the first page:

I do not hate people

Nor do I encroach

But if I become hungry

The usurper’s flesh will be my food

Beware…

Beware…

Of my hunger

And my anger! (894-895)

This statement reveals the built-up anger Darwish felt towards his government-oppressors. He also writes about where his anger started  building from. Even in present day Israel the treacherous of the past are influencing the thought and actions of present-day Israelis and Arab

Overall the segregation of culture is not the only defect in the country of Israel. They  are also home to one of the worst economies in the world know as the Gaza Strips (open Democracy).

The Israelis do not only fight in a contest for the Gaza Strip, even though so much death has been recorded in the region over the years. They fight because of the hatred that they have for the A , because they do not like to be controlled and because of their religion that they believe call on them to fight those who oppose them. They want to destroy the U.S. because they hate the freedom, opportunities, democratic institutions, a way of life, and the Judeo-Christian heritage (Haffar 15). This hatred has become quite civilizational a nd is rooted in the illiberal, intolerant, misogynist, anti-modernist and anti-scientific culture that they live out and their Muslim religion.

Since September 11, 2001, and after the war on terror, the idea of the existence of a clash between two of

In the modern times, especially in the 21^st Century, the clash has also become one of the identities. This is more serious in the case of dual identities. So many Jews who are not living in Israel have a strong identification of themselves with the Jewish state. And for most being Jewish is equivalent to being Zionist (open Democracy). This means that they show allegiance to Israel state. But this does not imply that all Jews have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship. For this reason, an American Jew, British Jew or even a French  Jew must be loyal to his or her own country of residency and citizenship, but is also loyal to Israel. In this case, there is a dual identity. Due to their close alliance, clashes between these countries and Israel are mostly not existent, and hence the clashes between the national identities are equally immaterial, this implies that the dual identity retains its cohesiveness (Hellinger and Londin 98).

The case of Muslims in the West is comparable but is also significantly unalike. Many millions of them have settled and become citizens in their adopted countries. Dissimilar to Jews however, they are not indigenous but immigrants or for recent cases, asylum seekers. Equal to the norm for migrants, the leading generation holds strong links and kinship with its origins in terms of country, region, language, ethnicity, religion and culture (Cho 43). Quite interesting  and counter-intuitive is the fact that such strong links and affinities have been handed down to a significant extent to the succeeding generations by some groups, though this is not done by all groups (Baram 55).

By doing this, they adopt strong dual identities to an extent that the identity that is attached to the motherland precedes that of the country and society of residence and citizenship.

The contention here is that this has grown and succeeded in becoming a widespread occurrence among so many Muslims in the West, which implies that their most significant and important indicator of identity is to their religion and extensively to Muslim countries and lands, summing up to the global umma (Open Democracy). It can, therefore, be concluded that any actual harm done to the Muslim faith and lands, or even one that is just perceived, is felt quite intensively. In addition, it is just as a natural corollary, with equally great animosity, which is shown towards those who commit such harm. When such animosity gets extreme, it transforms into Islamism and an intense Islamic identity. This, as witnessed since 9/11, can in its extremity engender violent opposition, which is jihadist behavior (inc.).

Work Cited

Baram, Amir. The Gaza Effect. [London?]: Royal College of Defence Studies, 2009. Print.

Cho, A. ‘Commitments, Ideology Clash Over DOE Research Spending ‘. Science 334.6057 (2011): 754-755. Web.

Haffar, Ahmad R. Israel And The Palestinians Israel And The Palestinians: Reflections On The Clash Of Two National Movements. Shlomo Avineri’. Journal of Palestine Studies 2.1 (1972): 120-127. Web.

Hellinger, Moshe, and Yossi London. ‘The Socio-Economic Ideology Of Religious Zionism In Israel: 1995—2007.’ Journal of Political Ideologies 17.1 (2012): 87-106. Web.

inc., MMN. ‘Home / Headlines / The Clash Thesis: A Failing Ideology? – Media Monitors Network (MMN). Usa.mediamonitors.net. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2015.

Open Democracy, ‘How The Clash Between Islamism And Zionism Not Only Affects The Middle East But Also The West’. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May 2015.

Palestinians

This is a fragment.

Your lack of punctuation makes this a run-on sentence.

This sentence started out beautifully and has deteriorated.

More analysis! More context to this poem!

Who is they? Israel’s economy is not bad. Palestine’s is.

The Israelis hate America?

Israelis do not hate America. America has been a huge supporter of Israel.

What does this mean? I’m confused by this paragraph. I don’t know what to make of it.

Do you know who Samuel Huntington is? I don’t feel like his theories are being well used here.

This is plagiarism. You’re not quoting Cho. Also, you need quotation marks.

This comes from this website: https://www.opendemocracy.net/rumy-hasan/how-clash-between-islamism-and-zionism-not-only-affects-middle-east-but-also-west

This is in your works cited page, but you attribute the quote incorrectly.

What is this?

All of this is plagiarized. This is cited incorrectly because it is ALL paraphrased without using the proper source. Cho is not the author of this source. Additionally, this is an enormous amount of information you are passing off without any original analysis.

I cannot accept this without substantial revisions.

0/100

There is no original thought after the 3rd page. This essay is unacceptable.

I’m very confused by this source. I’m looking it up, and it doesn’t seem at all relevant to your essay. Where you are citing it also seems misplaced. Did you get this off of Ebscohost? I think you’re misquoting this.