Skip to main content

Arab-Israel Conflict

 Arab-Israel Conflict


On November 6, 1917, during World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was on the edge of defeat, Sir Arthur Balfour, then the British Foreign Minister, made an announcement that the British would provide the Jews with a national home in Palestine. The British, on the other hand, were cunning. On the other hand, they signed a treaty with France and Russia known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, in which they declared their intention to keep Palestine as part of their own territory. They publicly declared that Palestine would be a Jewish homeland, but they were secretly plotting to take and govern the country in the long run. They also promised Palestine to the Arabs as a result of their opposition to the Ottoman Empire's rule.


Following the conclusion of World War I, a new government in Palestine was established, and this administration was known as the British Mandate of Palestine (BMP). Migrations were in large numbers under this mandate, and strategies of divide and rule were used. Jews began purchasing land from Arabs in the early 1900s. They drove out the Palestinian Arabs who lived in the area. It was as a result of this that small colonies, known as Jewish settlements, were established around the country. Due to the fact that the new immigrants refused to lease or sell land to Palestinians, as well as hire them, the Arab community in Palestine was opposed to the expansion in the Jewish population. When it came to the Jewish and Arab communities in the 1920s, relations between the two groups deteriorated and enmity between the two groups increased.


Arabs rose up in revolt against the British in 1936 as a result of the outcome of this mission. In order to put down this uprising, the British enlisted the assistance of Jews, who formed a Jewish militia. However, following the crushing of this uprising, the British realised that in order to placate the Arabs, they would have to make some significant adjustments. And it was for this reason that Jewish immigration was banned. This resulted in widespread resentment among Jews, including the Jewish militia, which then began conspiring against the British as a result.


Then came the outbreak of World War II. The Holocaust claimed the lives of around 2 million Jews. Because of the recurrent strife between Arabs and Palestinians, the United Nations was tasked with overseeing the situation in Israel. As a result, an equitable split of territory was established between a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to 1948, when the state of Israel was established.


The majority of Jerusalem's population was Muslim, with the remaining half being Jewish. As a result, the United Nations resolved that Jerusalem would be under international control. As soon as this declaration was made, all of Israel's neighbouring Arab countries began launching attacks against the Jewish state. This resulted in the outbreak of the first Arab-Israeli conflict, which lasted from 1948 to 1949. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Transjordan region launched attacks on the newly formed state. Israel was victorious in the conflict and was able to expand its borders. However, there was a humanitarian catastrophe involving refugees that erupted at the time. A total of about 7 lakh persons were displaced or moved. Egypt was given sovereignty of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan was given control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Additionally, Israel was given control of the remaining territories.


Following a few years, in 1967, a new war was fought between Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Israel. This battle was known as the Six Day War. Because to this battle, Israel was able to seize the Golan Heights, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, and parts of the West Bank. Arab states were humiliated in a resounding loss. Israel has increased its land area by a factor of three. However, due to diplomatic considerations, Israel later returned these conquered areas to their rightful owners. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt. Gaza and the West Bank are still under Israeli authority, despite the passage of time.


After Egypt reclaimed Sinai from Israel in 1978, Israel reciprocated by recognising Egypt as the legitimate government of the Jewish state. This was a watershed moment in Israel's history since it marked the first time that an Arab state agreed to recognise the Jewish nation. Israel has achieved a diplomatic success with this decision. Slowly but steadily, the majority of Arab countries began to make peace with Israel. There were no longer any battles between countries.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree