Israel Palestine Country Map Flag Gold Necklace Islam Middle East Muslim Unisex

$2.51 0 Bids or Best Offer 3d 3h 23m 43s, $7.57 Shipping, 30-Day Returns, eBay Money Back Guarantee
Seller: lasvegasormonaco ✉️ (3,239) 99.7%, Location: Manchester, Take a look at my other items, GB, Ships to: WORLDWIDE, Item: 266732658613 Israel Palestine Country Map Flag Gold Necklace Islam Middle East Muslim Unisex.                                                                               Palestine Country Flag Necklace Gold Plated Palestine Flag Israel Map Pendant with Gold Plated Chain Dimensions of the Pendant is 45mm x 15mm x 1 mm and the chain is 500 mm long In Excellent Condition Would make an Nice Gift or Collectable Keepsake

Comes from a pet and smoke free home

Sorry about the poor quality photos.  They don't  do the necklace  justice which looks a lot better in real life Like all my Auctions Bidding starts a a penny with no reserve... if your the only bidder you win it for 1p...Grab a Bargain!
Click Here to Check out my Other Similar Items & Coins Bid with Confidence - Check My 100% Positive Feedback from over 2,000 Satisfied Customers I have over 10 years of Ebay Selling Experience - So Why Not Treat Yourself? I have got married recently and need to raise funds to meet the costs also we are planning to move into a house together  I always combined postage on multiple items Instant Feedback Automatically Left Immediately after Receiving Payment All Items Sent out within 24 hours of Receiving Payment.

Overseas Bidders Please Note Surface Mail Delivery Times >

Western Europe takes up to 2 weeks, 

Eastern Europe up to 5 weeks, 

North America up to 6 weeks, 

South America, Africa and Asia up to 8 weeks and 

Australasia up to 12 weeks

Thanks for Looking and Best of Luck with the Bidding!!

Also if bidding from overseas and you want your item tracked please select the International Signed for Postage Option For that Interesting Conversational Piece, A Birthday Present, Christmas Gift, A Comical Item to Cheer Someone Up or That Unique Perfect Gift for the Person Who has Everything....You Know Where to Look for a Bargain!

XXXX - DO NOT CLICK HERE - XXXX  

Click Here to Add me to Your List of Favourite Sellers

If You Have any Questions Please Message me through ebay and  I Will Reply ASAP

"A Thing of Beauty is a Joy for ever"

So go ahead and treat yourself! With my free returns there is no risk!

Thanks for Looking and Hope to deal soon :)

I have sold items to coutries such as Afghanistan * Albania * Algeria * American Samoa (US) * Andorra * Angola * Anguilla (GB) * Antigua and Barbuda * Argentina * Armenia * Aruba (NL) * Australia * Austria * Azerbaijan * Bahamas * Bahrain * Bangladesh * Barbados * Belarus * Belgium * Belize * Benin * Bermuda (GB) * Bhutan * Bolivia * Bonaire (NL)  * Bosnia and Herzegovina * Botswana * Bouvet Island (NO) * Brazil * British Indian Ocean Territory (GB) * British Virgin Islands (GB) * Brunei * Bulgaria * Burkina Faso * Burundi * Cambodia * Cameroon * Canada * Cape Verde * Cayman Islands (GB) * Central African Republic * Chad * Chile * China * Christmas Island (AU) * Cocos Islands (AU) * Colombia * Comoros * Congo * Democratic Republic of the Congo * Cook Islands (NZ) * Coral Sea Islands Territory (AU) * Costa Rica * Croatia  * Curaçao (NL)  * Cyprus * Czech Republic * Denmark * Djibouti * Dominica * Dominican Republic * East Timor * Ecuador * Egypt * El Salvador * Equatorial Guinea * Eritrea * Estonia * Ethiopia * Falkland Islands (GB) * Faroe Islands (DK) * Fiji Islands * Finland * France * French Guiana (FR) * French Polynesia (FR) * French Southern Lands (FR) * Gabon * Gambia * Georgia * Germany * Ghana * Gibraltar (GB) * Greece * Greenland (DK) * Grenada * Guadeloupe (FR) * Guam (US) * Guatemala * Guernsey (GB) * Guinea * Guinea-Bissau * Guyana * Haiti * Heard and McDonald Islands (AU) * Honduras * Hong Kong (CN) * Hungary * Iceland * India * Indonesia  * Iraq * Ireland * Isle of Man (GB) * Israel * Italy * Ivory Coast * Jamaica * Jan Mayen (NO) * Japan * Jersey (GB) * Jordan * Kazakhstan * Kenya * Kiribati * Kosovo * Kuwait * Kyrgyzstan * Laos * Latvia * Lebanon * Lesotho * Liberia * Libya * Liechtenstein * Lithuania * Luxembourg * Macau (CN) * Macedonia * Madagascar * Malawi * Malaysia * Maldives * Mali * Malta * Marshall Islands * Martinique (FR) * Mauritania * Mauritius * Mayotte (FR) * Mexico * Micronesia * Moldova * Monaco * Mongolia * Montenegro * Montserrat (GB) * Morocco * Mozambique * Myanmar * Namibia * Nauru * Navassa (US) * Nepal * Netherlands * New Caledonia (FR) * New Zealand * Nicaragua * Niger * Nigeria * Niue (NZ) * Norfolk Island (AU) *  Korea * Northern Cyprus * Northern Mariana Islands (US) * Norway * Oman * Pakistan * Palau * Palestinian Authority * Panama * Papua New Guinea * Paraguay * Peru * Philippines * Pitcairn Island (GB) * Poland * Portugal * Puerto Rico (US) * Qatar * Reunion (FR) * Romania * Russia * Rwanda * Saba (NL)  * Saint Barthelemy (FR) * Saint Helena (GB) * Saint Kitts and Nevis * Saint Lucia * Saint Martin (FR) * Saint Pierre and Miquelon (FR) * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines * Samoa * San Marino * Sao Tome and Principe * Saudi Arabia * Senegal * Serbia * Seychelles * Sierra Leone * Singapore * Sint Eustatius (NL)  * Sint Maarten (NL)  * Slovakia * Slovenia * Solomon Islands * Somalia * South Africa * South Georgia (GB) * South Korea * South Sudan * Spain * Sri Lanka * Sudan * Suriname * Svalbard (NO) * Swaziland * Sweden * Switzerland ** Taiwan * Tajikistan * Tanzania * Thailand * Togo * Tokelau (NZ) * Tonga * Trinidad and Tobago * Tunisia * Turkey * Turkmenistan * Turks and Caicos Islands (GB) * Tuvalu * U.S. Minor Pacific Islands (US) * U.S. Virgin Islands (US) * Uganda * Ukraine * United Arab Emirates * United Kingdom * United States * Uruguay * Uzbekistan * Vanuatu * Vatican City * Venezuela * Vietnam * Wallis and Futuna (FR) * Yemen * Zambia * Zimbabwe and major cities such as Tokyo, Yokohama, New York City, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Mexico City, Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Manila, Mumbai, Delhi, Jakarta, Lagos, Kolkata, Cairo, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Shanghai, Karachi, Paris, Istanbul, Nagoya, Beijing, Chicago, London, Shenzhen, Essen, Düsseldorf, Tehran, Bogota, Lima, Bangkok, Johannesburg, East Rand, Chennai, Taipei, Baghdad, Santiago, Bangalore, Hyderabad, St Petersburg, Philadelphia, Lahore, Kinshasa, Miami, Ho Chi Minh City, Madrid, Tianjin, Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, Milan, Shenyang, Dallas, Fort Worth, Boston, Belo Horizonte, Khartoum, Riyadh, Singapore, Washington, Detroit, Barcelona,, Houston, Athens, Berlin, Sydney, Atlanta, Guadalajara, San Francisco, Oakland, Montreal, Monterey, Melbourne, Ankara, Recife, Phoenix/Mesa, Durban, Porto Alegre, Dalian, Jeddah, Seattle, Cape Town, San Diego, Fortaleza, Curitiba, Rome, Naples, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Tel Aviv, Birmingham, Frankfurt, Lisbon, Manchester, San Juan, Katowice, Tashkent, Fukuoka, Baku, Sumqayit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Sapporo, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Taichung, Warsaw, Denver, Cologne, Bonn, Hamburg, Dubai, Pretoria, Vancouver, Beirut, Budapest, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Campinas, Harare, Brasilia, Kuwait, Munich, Portland, Brussels, Vienna, San Jose, Damman , Copenhagen, Brisbane, Riverside, San Bernardino, Cincinnati and Accra
Pendant     Article     Talk     Read     Edit     View history Tools From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the jewellery. For the condition of something hanging, see pendent. For other uses, see Pendant (disambiguation). Not to be confused with pedant. Amber pendants Pushpaka Thali - Wedding pendant used by Pushpaka Brahmins of Kerala, India Wedding pendant with 21 beads used by Saint Thomas Christians of India Spanish pendant at Victoria and Albert Museum. Indonesian pendants A pendant is a loose-hanging piece of jewellery, generally attached by a small loop to a necklace, which may be known as a "pendant necklace".[1] A pendant earring is an earring with a piece hanging down. Its name stems from the Latin word pendere and Old French word pendr, both of which translate to "to hang down". In modern French, pendant is the gerund form of pendre ("to hang") and also means "during". The extent to which the design of a pendant can be incorporated into an overall necklace makes it not always accurate to treat them as separate items.[2] In some cases, though, the separation between necklace and pendant is far clearer.[2] Overview Carved agarwood imperial pendant, Qing dynasty, China. Adilnor Collection, Sweden. Pendants are among the oldest recorded types of bodily adornment. Stone, shell, pottery, and more perishable materials were used. Ancient Egyptians commonly wore pendants, some shaped like hieroglyphs. Pendants can have several functions, which may be combined:     Award (i.e., Scouting Ireland Chief Scout's Award, Order of CúChulainn)     Identification (i.e., religious symbols, sexual symbols, symbols of rock bands)     Ornamentation     Ostentation (i.e., jewels).     Protection (i.e., amulets, religious symbols)     Self-affirmation (i.e., initials, names) The many specialized types of pendants include lockets which open, often to reveal an image, and pendilia, which hang from larger objects of metalwork. Types Throughout the ages, pendants have come in a variety of forms to serve a variety of purposes. Amulet Though amulets come in many forms, a wearable amulet worn around the neck or on the arm or leg in the form of a pendant is the most common. These are objects believed to possess magical or spiritual power to protect the wearer from danger or dispel evil influences.[3] Talisman Similar to an amulet, a talisman is an object believed to possess supernatural traits. However, while an amulet is strictly a defensive object, a talisman is meant to confer special benefits or powers upon the wearer.[4] Locket A locket is a small object that opens to reveal a space which serves to hold a small object, usually a photograph or a curl of hair. They typically come in the form of a pendant hanging from a necklace, though they will occasionally be hung from a charm bracelet.[5] Medallion A medallion is most often a coin-shaped piece of metal worn as a pendant around the neck or pinned onto clothing. These are generally granted as awards, recognitions, or religious blessings.[6] Painting Main article: Pendant painting Pendant is the name given to one of two paintings conceived as a pair. They usually are gift from couples and some cultures consider the act of giving one a marry proposition.[7] Functional pendants Traveller's sundial pendant (a portable form of astronomical rings) used to tell time from the sun. Tools worn as pendants include Maori pounamu pendants. Shepherd's whistles, bosun's whistles, and ocarinas can also be made as pendants. Portable astronomical and navigational instruments were made as pendants. In the first decade of the 21st century, jewellers started to incorporate USB flash drives into pendants.[8][9] Fashion pendants Fashion pendants include a small creative piece often made from precious or non-precious stones and metals like diamonds or pearls hanging freely from a chain or necklace. These are generally worn as a statement piece or a fashion ornament.[10] Other types     Harness pendant See also     Boule de Genève     Petit chien à bélière     Yupei - Chinese jade pendant References Wikimedia Commons has media related to Pendants (jewellery). "The Early Pendant: A Jewelry And A Talisman". Talismanamulet.org. Archived from the original on 8 December 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012. Johns, Catherine (1996). The Jewellery of Roman Britain Celtic and classical Traditions. Routledge. p. 104. ISBN 9780415516129. "amulet". The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). Encyclopedia.com. 2014. Retrieved 27 October 2014. "Talisman". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Encyclopedia.com. 2001. Retrieved 27 October 2014. Luscomb, Sally. The Collector's Encyclopedia of Buttons. Atglen, PA: Schiffer. p. 242. ISBN 0-7643-1815-2. "Medal". The Columbia Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia.com. 2014. Retrieved 27 October 2014. "Pendants For Married Couple - A Perfect Gift For Your Partner". Yamamoto, Mike (1 February 2007). "USB as fashion statement". CNet. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 3 October 2013. Yamamoto, Mike (11 June 2007). "The hot trend in designer jewelry: USB keys". CNet. Retrieved 3 October 2013.     "Ways to Style Pendant Necklaces".     vte Jewellery Forms     Anklet Barrette Belly chain Belt buckle Bindi Bolo tie Bracelet Brooch Chatelaine Collar pin Crown Cufflink Earring Ferronnière Genital Lapel pin Necklace Neck ring Pectoral Pendant Ring Tiara Tie chain Tie clip Tie pin Toe ring Watch         pocket strap Making People     Bench jeweler Clockmaker Goldsmith Jewellery designer Lapidarist Silversmith Watchmaker Processes     Carving Casting         centrifugal lost-wax vacuum Enameling Engraving Filigree Kazaziye Metal clay Plating Polishing Repoussé and chasing Soldering Stonesetting Wire sculpture Wire wrapped jewelry Tools     Draw plate File Hammer Mandrel Pliers Materials Precious metals     Gold Palladium Platinum Rhodium Silver Precious metal alloys     Britannia silver Colored gold Crown gold Electrum Shakudō Shibuichi Sterling silver         Argentium Tumbaga Base metals     Brass Bronze Copper Mokume-gane Nickel silver (alpacca) Pewter Pinchbeck Stainless steel Titanium Tungsten Mineral gemstones     Agate Amazonite Amethyst Aventurine Beryl (red) Carnelian Chrysoberyl Chrysocolla Diamond Diopside Emerald Fluorite Garnet Howlite Jade Jasper Kyanite Labradorite Lapis lazuli Larimar Malachite Marcasite Moonstone Obsidian Onyx Opal Peridot Prasiolite Quartz (smoky) Ruby Sapphire Sodalite Spinel Sunstone Tanzanite Tiger's eye Topaz Tourmaline Turquoise Variscite Zircon Organic gemstones     Abalone Amber Ammolite Copal Coral         Black Precious Ivory Jet Nacre Operculum Pearl Tortoiseshell Other natural objects     Bezoar Bog-wood Ebonite (vulcanite) Gutta-percha Hair Shell         Spondylus shell Toadstone Terms     Art jewelry Carat (mass) Carat (purity) Finding Fineness Related topics     Body piercing     Fashion     Gemology     Metalworking     Phaleristics     Wearable art Categories:     Jewellery componentsNecklacesTypes of jewellery Peace Views 2,605,238 Updated May 21 2018 Peace Subinternational peace plans International peace systems World peace systems Peace movements bibliography Social science has uncovered more knowledge about war than about peace, just as psychology probably has yielded more insights into negative deviance (such as mental illness) than into positive deviance (such as creativity). Unfortunately, studies tend to be focused on wars as units of analysis rather than on periods of peace, and there is a tendency to define peace simply as “nonwar.” Thus, peace thinking has had a tendency to become Utopian and to be oriented toward the future; it has been speculative and value contaminated rather than analytical and empirical. It is conceivable that this might change if research were to be focused more on peace than on war. Two concepts of peace should be distinguished:negative peace, defined as the absence of organized violence between such major human groups as nations, but also between racial and ethnic groups because of the magnitude that can be reached by internal wars; and positive peace, defined as a pattern of cooperation and integration between major human groups. Absence of violence should not be confused with absence of conflict: violence may occur without conflict, and conflict may be solved by means of nonviolent mechanisms. The distinction between these two types of peace gives rise to a fourfold classification of relations between two nations: war, which is organized group violence; negative peace, where there is no violence but no other form of interaction either and where the best characterization is “peaceful coexistence”;positive peace, where there is some cooperation interspersed with occasional outbreaks of violence; and unqualified peace, where absence of violence is combined with a pattern of cooperation. The conception of peace as “nonwar” is neither theoretically nor practically interesting: as used, for instance, in describing the relationship that obtains between Norway and Nepal, it can often be explained in terms of a low level of interaction resulting from geographical distance and thus will hardly be identified by many as an ideal relation worth striving for. For peace, like health, has both cognitive and evaluative components: it designates a state of a system of nations, but this state is so highly valued that institutions are built around it to protect and promote it. It is the concept of positive peace that is worth exploring, especially since negative peace is a conditio sine qua non and the two concepts of peace may be empirically related even though they are logically independent. In the absence of what one might call solid empirical research and a coherent peace theory, the concept of peace can best be explicated by means of an examination of peace thinking. Just as there has been no lack of attention paid to war (Sorokin 1937-1941; Wright 1942; Richardson 1960a), so there is no scarcity of peace plans (Wynner & Lloyd 1944; Hemleben 1943; Doob I960; Hinsley 1963; Murty & Bouquet 1960), and an extensive typology would be needed to do full justice to most of the latter. The approach here will be to present the outlines of such a typology, and to bring the insights and knowledge of social science to bear upon some of these ideas. For peace is a problem of social organization, and the theory of peace and war will someday be subsumed under the general theory of social organization. A typology of peace plans . A major axis for the classification of any peace plan is the level of organization that it singles out for reform. The problem of peace, in the mind of a person proposing something, can be located at any of five levels: the level of the isolated individual; the level of human groups; the level of human societies or nations; the level of the international system of nations; and the emerging level of a world state. For simplicity, the first three can be collapsed, leaving only three levels of peace plans: the subinternational, the international, and the level of the world state. Of these three major types of peace plans, the first is not oriented toward the international system at all, whereas the other two are, but in very different ways. Plans that focus on the international system seek to preserve the essential characteristics of the present system of nation-states while organizing it in such a way that it will be stabilized at some level of interaction that can be characterized as “peaceful.” Those who seek a world state take for granted that some kind of integration is a necessary condition and ask how this integration can be stabilized in favor of peace. Obviously, the world-state approach is oriented toward both positive and negative peace, whereas the focus on the international system asks less of the system in terms of positive peace as long as only negative peace is obtained. Within each class of models there are a number of more specific ideas; we shall mention some of particular importance. All of them take their point of departure from one specific variable used to characterize the system, and the model is identified with one particular value of that variable. Subinternational Peace Plans There are several well-known approaches at the subinternational level, and although they play a minor role in contemporary thinking about peace, they should be mentioned because of their prevalence. The basic idea of intrahuman approaches to peace is that intergroup, and also interhuman, conflicts are nonrealistic conflicts (Coser 1956) and, more particularly, projections of intrahuman conflicts. Hence, if man could be freed from more of his inner conflicts, he would behave in a less aggressive manner at the international level. Past generations’ techniques of freeing individuals from internal conflicts depended on religious conversion, whereas in contemporary societies psychotherapy is more frequently called for—if not for the whole population, at least for its leaders, and if not for its present leaders, at least as a screening device for future leaders (Klineberg 1964). Interhuman approaches to peace emphasize the idea of projection of interhuman rivalry onto higher levels of human organization and, more positively, the idea that training in peaceful conflict resolution at lower levels may be transferred to higher levels, including the international level. Life in the family, at school, at work, or in associations may be seen as possible training grounds, particularly for those who are to become world leaders. Likewise, intrasocietal approaches to peace emphasize the idea of projection: societies that are especially conflict-ridden will use external aggression as a means to force internal cohesion. This approach also includes the idea that some political systems are more peace-loving than others; more particularly, great importance is given to a fair distribution of the wealth of a nation to its inhabitants. The major objection to these subinternational approaches is, of course, that there is a confusion of levels of analysis. Wars between nations take place at the international level; this level is sui generis and requires analyses and reforms at that level. Lower levels may be of some importance, but their impact is likely to suffer a quick decrease as one moves into the foreign offices and other centers of international policy decision making. This is not to deny the possible importance of screening applicants for key positions in the international system in order to prevent an accumulation of frustration that may be converted into aggression among important decision makers. This proposal assumes that clinical psychology is further advanced in diagnosis and prognosis than in the cure of the mental deviant. And it is probably also true that the best training ground for desired types of behavior is in real-life situations that approximate the kind of situations in which decision makers work. As for the intrasocietal approach, a study by Michael Haas (1965) shows that it has so far failed to produce very significant correlations between intrasocietal structure and external behavior. There is some evidence that democratic societies are less belligerent and also that more developed societies are more belligerent. The latter is confirmed by a study from the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, based on Quincy Wright’s data (Broch & Galtung 1966). Moreover, there is nothing that seems to confirm the widely held idea that a major increase in the standard of living of the world population or a fairer distribution of the fruits of man’s labor would contribute significantly to a more peaceful world. A better distribution may solve internal problems but at the same time free resources for external aggression. International Peace Systems Various suggestions for international peace plans are both theoretically and practically more promising than those that focus on the subinternational level. Based on distribution of power Most peace thinking has centered on the problem of how power shall best be distributed among the nations of the world. Theories relating to this are usually marred by the neglect of other kinds of power than coercive power; influence potential in its most general sense is rarely considered. If we stick to this tradition of studying the distribution of military power, there are four major models of peace. The first model is that of minimum equality,which is based on the theory that the international system is best served by making power the monopoly of one nation or system, just as it is monopolized by some statuses in the intranational system. Examples are the Pax Romana, Pax Ecclesiae, andPax Britannica—and the contemporary efforts to establish a Pax Americana or a Pax Sovietica before the stalemate was crystallized in the idea of a system of peaceful coexistence. The second model focuses on maximum equality,or what is usually referred to as a “balance of power” (Kaplan 1957), in the sense that no nation or alliance is strong enough to defeat another nation or alliance. A modern version is the “balance of terror,” in which a nation may defeat other nations, but only at the risk of being completely destroyed itself. War becomes impossible under the balance of mutual destruction of a Pax Atomica: the risks are too great. A third model views military powers as stabilized at a low level; this refers to all kinds of armscontrol efforts, especially those that have taken place from the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 to the present day, including contemporary thinking that aims at subtracting from a Hobbesianhelium omnium contra omnes both some means of violence and some objects of violence. The idea is to rule out general and complete war. Finally, there is the model that views power asstabilized at a zero level; this refers to the general (all nations) and complete (all weapons) disarmament advocated by pacifists. Pacifism asserts that this state may be obtained unilaterally by the effect of example, because weapons become meaningless when they do not encounter similar weapons, and by the refusal of soldiers to use arms, as well as by governmental decisions. Where the model of minimum equality is concerned, there might perhaps be agreement among nations about the appointment of a police nation in the world but not about its consequences—i.e., that coercive power usually will be accompanied by other kinds of influence. The police nation, it may be feared, will abuse its power and impose its value system and sociopolitical system on other nations. This would be acceptable if there were a general value consensus, in which case the system would be close to one of the many world peace systems described below. The major difficulty in the model of maximum equality seems to be that the system, although in momentary equilibrium, is not in stable equilibrium. It is based on the relative evaluation of two power potentials, and since military power is manydimensional (because it consists of many weapons systems), this evaluation may be far from consensual. There will always be room for the idea that one’s own power is not sufficiently developed. Thus, the basis is laid for arms races, and it is difficult to see any good theoretical justification for the thesis that there will be points of stability—for instance, that major technical breakthroughs will not occur (Richardson 1960a; Galtung 1964a). The need for sufficient retaliatory power after an enemy’s first strike also makes the terror balance unstable. Overkill capacity in peace is no argument against a continued arms race; what matters is what is left after the first strike. One major difficulty in the model that focuses on arms control is the arbitrariness of all border lines between permissible and illegitimate weapons. For such border lines to be consensually accepted, they must be protected by some kind of discontinuity (Schelling 1960), such as the clear line that existed between conventional and nuclear weapons before the overlap in destructive power became too conspicuous with the introduction of the variety of tactical atomic weapons. Thus, such agreements are likely to be highly technical, difficult to understand, easy to evade, and difficult to supervise. Where the model of general and complete disarmament is concerned, one major objection is its failure to consider the need for countervailing power. One evader of an agreement may dominate the total system if he has an absolute weapon at his disposal. For this reason, general and complete disarmament can preserve peace only if the distribution of power in the system accords with the minimum-equality model (or with one of the world peace systems, discussed below), or if provision is made in the system for the effective use of nonmilitary forms of power (economic sanctions, nonmilitary defense systems, etc.) against those who evade disarmament agreements. It should be emphasized, however, that there is no reason to believe that weapons, once they exist, will have to be used. Any city has in its hardware stores and its pharmacies more than enough weapons and poisons to provide for overkill capacity, and this weaponry is usually not very well protected. Nevertheless, it is not usually abused, and the reasons for this may also become operative at the international level. Based on organization of conflicts The second general type of international peace plan focuses on the organization of conflicts. The basic model here is the crisscross model, which is based on the idea that a system is strengthened, not weakened, the more conflicts it harbors, provided all these conflicts do not divide the units the same way. If two nations are allies in one conflict (for instance, between East and West, in the language of the cold war), they may nevertheless be antagonists in another conflict (for instance, between rich and poor nations), and this subjects them to cross pressures. The effects of cross pressures are a tendency toward withdrawal and neutrality, or nonalignment; the development of multiple loyalties that prevent complete identification and involvement in any conflict; and a tendency to serve as a channel of communication between the groups that are not exposed to cross pressure. A major weakness of this theory is that one conflict will probably be defined as more salient than the other, so that the crisscross effect will be reduced. Another weakness is that if both conflicts are concerned with struggle for rank (for instance, political and economic rank), then nations that are high on one and low on the other will be in “rank disequilibrium” and will probably feed much aggressiveness into the system (Galtung 1964b). Based on individual loyalty conflicts Whereas, according to the crisscross model, peace is obtained when nations are caught in cross pressures, other peace models imply that the violence potential of nations is reduced when divided loyalties are induced in individuals. One such plan seeks to manipulate multiple national loyalties: the idea is to impede conflict polarization by institutionalizing, preferably across potential conflict border lines, secondary and primary relations between individuals from different nations. In practice, the suggestions are many: for example, mixed marriages, exchanges of all kinds (children, youths, students, professionals, politicians), and increased knowledge and empathy. A second plan seeks to build crosscutting organizational loyalties. The division of the world into about 130 nations and territories provides, roughly, an exhaustive and mutually exclusive division of mankind. But it is also divided into nearly two thousand international organizations, which provide many individuals with other focuses of identification, although this division is far from exhaustive (and not exclusive either). With increased communication, geographical distance decreases in importance; thus, organizational identification may gradually gain in importance relative to national identification and eventually provide a multiple loyalty that would make it difficult to organize individuals in wars against their peers. Probably the only major objection to the idea of multiple national loyalties is that it may be of relatively low significance, given the conformity of most people to the calls of their national leaders. However, the idea of crosscutting organizational loyalties raises some important theoretical issues. An organization is built around values but may span a wide spectrum of geography—possibly the whole world. Conversely, a nation is built around a territory, usually based on geographical contiguity, but may span a wide spectrum of value orientations if it is of the pluralist variety. However, there is also the classical idea of the nation-state, which is both homogeneous in values and contiguous in territory and in which the inhabitants are protected against violent internal ideological conflicts because of cultural homogeneity. (Belgium and India provide examples of what may happen when this condition does not obtain.) This internal homogeneity is bought at the expense of heterogeneity between nations, which means that complete identification with the nation-state yields a tremendous conflict potential. And this is also the case with complete identification with the organization, as long as geographical proximity means something. People seem to want others to share their values, and in a world divided into organizations they would not be protected against the proselytizing efforts of rival organizations by the walls set up by the nation-state. Hence, where identification is concerned, the most peaceful world is probably found at an intermediate point, with most people sharing their loyalty equally between the two focuses or some identifying with the national focus and some with the organizational. Based on degree of homology Homology between nations—the extent to which they are similar in social and political structure, so that each institution and status in nation A has its “opposite number” in nation B—has been singled out as a factor of importance. There are two models of peace based on this concept. In the models ofminimum homology nations are as different as possible, in the sense that they have different value structures; thus, they will not compete for the same scarce values but can establish a very specific pattern of interdependence—a kind of symbiosis based on complementarity. On the other hand, where maximum homology prevails, nations are as similar as possible in social structure and value structure, thus facilitating diffuse interaction and creating a value consensus. It is argued that the more similar nations are in terms of their culture (including language), the lower is the probability of misunderstanding. The theoretical basis is the thesis of “value homophily”—i.e., that similarity tends to produce liking and interaction. Again, it is difficult to see that there is any guarantee for peace in any of these theories. In particular, there is no basis for equating value consensus with absence of conflicts: value consensus means that the same objects are valued positively, and if the objects are scarce, the probability of conflicts is higher, not lower. Misunderstandings may cause conflicts, and they may also conceal them. And where minimum homology is concerned, as between the European powers and the political systems found in Africa and America at the time they were opened up to European penetration, it seems quite likely that one nation will prevail over the other—militarily or culturally—and unlikely that the symbiosis will be stable. But again there may be a curvilinear relationship at work: it may be that at a very high level of mutual penetration, values are shared to the extent that a basis for cooperation in pursuing the same goals, such as high productivity or happiness, may be present. To the extent that this is the case, it means that on the path to maximum homology there is a danger zone to pass, where the pursuit of goals has still not been coordinated and the goals are both consensual and scarce. Based on international stratification We may assume that international stratification—that is, the ranking of nations as high or low on such rank dimensions as size, population, power, natural resources, income per capita, cultural level, social level, and urbanization—is multidimensional and that there is a tendency toward rank equilibrium,in the sense that nations tend to divide into those that are high and those that are low on most or many dimensions. The problem, as for systems of individuals, is how the interaction between nations is regulated; there seem to be two models that focus on regulating “class conflict” at the international level. First, there is the feudal type of system, where there is a high level of interaction at the top and alow level at the bottom—that is, the international system is tied together at the top by trade, diplomacy, and all other kinds of exchange. Although there is very little interaction at the bottom, there may be some from top to bottom. This system is easily controlled by the wealthy nations; if there is a consensus among them, the system may achieve a stability similar to that of the caste system or of slave societies. By contrast, in what may be called the modern system there is an equal level of interaction at the top and at the bottom: the “underdogs” unite in organizations that make it possible for them to countervail the influence of the “top dog” nations. Thus, one might envisage a kind of trade union of small nations that is able to strike against the big nations, organize embargoes to obtain better prices for raw materials, etc., and thus force upon the world a more equitable distribution of world output. Over time the importance of class lines may then decrease in the international system. Again, there are many objections to these models. Most people today would probably object to the feudal system on a purely ideological basis. There is also the important difference between intranational and international levels of organization: the upper class in a national society is often marked by solidarity in its relationship to the lower classes, whereas upper-class nations in the international system have a higher tendency to fight among themselves (which is just one more expression of the lack of value and system integration at the international level). Thus, the international system tends to be divided into subsystems, each of which consists of one big power and its satellites, with a feudal structure both within and between these subsystems. The modern system seems more promising, but that may only be because it has never really been tried. One objection is that it lends itself readily to international class warfare of poor and small nations against rich and big nations. A likely variant is that one big power will try to win over as many as possible of the satellites of the other big powers and become the leader of these satellites in such class warfare. Another objection is that the modern system will probably have less rank equilibrium, that is, there will be more nations that can be ranked high on one dimension of the international stratification system and low on one or more of the others. This will increase the potential for international aggression. The latter objection, at least, seems consistent with current developments: the “revolution of rising expectations” that is taking place has lifted some lower-class nations over temporary disequilibria, such as being rich but not powerful, toward new positions of equilibrium at a higher level, such as being both rich and powerful after capital has been converted into weapons and weapons into territorial gains. Thus, as in the case of models based on degree of homology, there is probably a curvilinear relationship at work between the system elements, which could mean that the period ahead will be a particularly difficult one. Based on degree of interdependence Some models of peace are based on interdependence between nations. Interdependence, or interaction where some kind of positive value is exchanged between the parties to the interaction, may vary in frequency (how often), volume (how much is transferred), and scope (variety of value exchanged). Trade between two nations is a good example of how all three can vary independently. There are two principal models based on this concept. The model of minimum interdependence envisages a world where each nation is autonomous and self-sufficient and no nation intervenes or interferes in the affairs of any other nation; this is a clear case of negative peace, where positive peace is explicitly ruled out (Burton 1965). On the other hand, in the model of maximum interdependence all pairs of nations have maximum interaction in terms of frequency, volume, and scope. The idea is that all pairs of nations would be protected from rupture and violent conflict by the web of affiliations spun between them; positive interaction with other nations would be built into each nation in such a way that wars would be too costly. Thus, all nations should enjoy relations somewhat like those between Norway and Sweden. A major difficulty with these two models lies in their failure to deal with the essential characteristics of violence. Violence in interindividual relationships seems to be at a maximum under the conditions of either maximum or minimum scope of interaction. In the case of maximum interaction, which sociologists would refer to as “diffuse interaction,” conflicts may lead to extreme patterns of violence, as seen in civil wars or in enmity between former friends (Coser 1956). In the case of no interdependence, empathy serves less as a protection against application of extreme violence. In general, most violent conflicts are both preceded and accompanied by polarization of attitudes (Coleman 1957); in this case polarization is already built into the system. Thus, we are probably justified in assuming a U-shaped relationship betweenscope and intensity of conflicts, which would mean that precisely the two values singled out in these two models—that is, the values of minimum and maximum interdependence—are the most dangerous ones. The probability of conflict, however, may be highest when the interaction is specific—that is, limited in scope but not down to zero—but in that case conflicts are most likely to be regulated by contract and rational calculation, so that they will be less intense. With very diffuse interaction between nations, conflicts along one dimension of interaction may be dampened by the other dimensions, but they may also be reinforced and escalated; moreover, even if this is improbable, the disutility of open conflict is high. This does not mean that there does not exist a level of interdependence so high that the probability of all-out conflicts is almost zero, but on its path toward that point the international system will have to pass through dangerous zones of nonzero probability and high intensity of conflict. Moreover, statistics on wars show that they are highly correlated with the degree of interdependence between nations (Wright 1942); only rarely are wars directed toward complete strangers. Finally, it should be emphasized that much of what is called “economic development” is an effort to obtain self-sufficiency and hence to reduce the need for interdependence. Based on functional cooperation Interaction or interdependence that implies only some kind of exchange should not be confused with functional cooperation, which implies that the parties together produce something they may then share. Coproduction is one form of functional cooperation, as when several nations combine resources in order to produce something really big, such as a supersonic commercial airplane or a gigantic development project. There is good reason to believe that, at the level of individuals, functional cooperation on equal terms is one of the factors most efficient in producing integration (Berelson & Steiner 1964, p. 513). This hypothesis of functional cooperation has often been put forward in connection with nations (by President Kennedy, for instance, in connection with the moon race). The idea, then, is that any specific cooperation provides training for more comprehensive cooperation. World Peace Systems All of the following models of world systems have in common a certain resemblance to a nationstate, usually one held to be successful by the person who puts forward the proposal. The idea is that since many nation-states have obtained reasonable security and equity for their inhabitants, there must be something in their structure that is worth copying at the world level. Proposals vary, but they all have in common the idea of a center of decision making with means at its disposal to obtain compliance from the constituent units. Of the many dimensions that can be used to describe such models only three will be discussed. First, models of world systems can be described in terms of the type of unit on which the system is based. When the basic unit is the individual, the world system is conceived as a world state, with a very low level of autonomy for intermediate levels, such as the nation. With nations as units the world system becomes a confederation, with the nation as a political level interposed between the individual and the government. Congruence between the authority structures of nation and confederation may have a stabilizing effect on the system as a whole (Eckstein 1961). The difference between these two models is rarely argued in terms of their relevance for peace. Rather, the world confederation is seen as an intermediate step in a more gradualist approach toward the world state or as a system with the built-in protection of some internal autonomy. Also, there is the idea that border lines should be preserved to some extent, precisely because they slow down cultural diffusion and influence and thus contribute to the preservation of sociocultural pluralism—which many fear might disappear in a world state because of the homogenizing effect of a strong nucleus of decision making. But cultural differences in a pluralist system may serve as focuses of conflicts or, at least, as focuses for prejudices and mild forms of discrimination. The costs of pluralism would therefore have to be calculated in terms of potential for conflict. Models of world systems can also be described in terms of their scope and domain. By “scope” we refer to the variety of needs satisfied by the world system; and by “domain,” to how many receive need satisfaction from the system. Classification in terms of these two system functions produces two basic models. The first rates high on scope but low on domain. It is the form taken by the regional federation, which gives much in terms of scope to its members but is exclusive in terms of membership; a leading example is the European Economic Community. The second model rates high on domain but low on scope. It is the form taken by the functionally specific organization, which sets no limits, at least in principle, to the number and type of people whose needs it may serve but is able to do this only because both the needs and the type of service provided are of a limited type; an example would be any specialized agency of the UN. A true world system has to rate high on both of these dimensions because it cannot exclude any class of units, whether nations or individuals, if it wants to be universal, and it also has to offer a wide variety of goods and values if it is to be seen as a source of gratification. Thus, the two models just described must be seen as steps on the road toward a closer analogy with the nation-state (E. Haas 1964). The world system would rate high on domain and high on scope; it would be a true world state or federation, which excluded nobody and tried to satisfy a wide variety of needs that were formerly satisfied at subordinate levels (Deutsch 1966). No agreement exists on whether the regional or the functionally specific model bears more promise as a step toward this full-fledged world system. There is the pragmatic point of view that the regional model is needed as a training ground in systems that are low on scope, and the functionally specific model in systems that are low on domain. But there are also the arguments that the bigger the unit, in terms of number of members, the bigger will be the wars involving that unit and that regionalism is likely to unite upper-class nations (because they have the most interaction experience) and thus contribute to a feudal world pattern. Nature of compliance systems A political system is meaningless unless there is a relatively high degree of compliance with a high proportion of centrally decreed norms. According to Etzioni (1961), there are three basic types of compliance mechanisms: the normative, the contractual, and the coercive [SeeSocial Control, article onOrganizational Aspects]. This typology can usefully be applied here. Normative compliance means simply that there is an internalized desire to comply; behavior that is institutionally necessary is internalized as a need disposition in the personal system. The many suggestions for a world system based on this type of compliance focus on two main ideas: creating loyalty to the central agency on the grounds that it provides many services; and creating loyalty on a more ideological basis by a suitable use of symbols, such as the idea of the brotherhood of all men. A basic idea here is the democratic idea that normative compliance is promoted by a pattern of representative and direct democracy on the world level; another idea is that of creating a “welfare world” after the model of the welfare state. Contractual compliance, by contrast, is built into the institutional structure by making compliance pay, just as an employee is motivated to perform his tasks because he knows he will receive a salary. In the same way, it is argued, nations and individuals can be motivated to perform services for the international community, provided that the latter gives them something in return. They may or may not combine this with a subjective feeling of loyalty; what is essential is that they should perform according to a quid pro quo principle. The system is based on exchange, and disagreements can be resolved by mediation, arbitration, and adjudication, as well as by a suitable clearing system for the exchanges. Coercive compliance is, of course, compliance based on the use or threat of force, especially against members defined as aggressors. At the international level the model is the deviance-detection-con vie tion-adjudieation-sanctioning scheme borrowed from the control systems of national societies. International peace based on coercive compliance is enforced by such institutions as those provided for in the UN Charter: observer corps, peace-keeping forces of different kinds, the World Court, and sanctions of all kinds built into a system of international law. Particularly important is the search for sanctions, whether economic or diplomatic, that stop short of war (Galtung 1965). This is the legal approach to the problem of international conflict management; it presupposes a nucleus of global institutions and is inconceivable at the purely international level unless one nation takes upon itself the task of acting as a third party in the international system. The problems of the legal approach, which is essentially an effort to obtain predictability by codifying international behavior, can also be analyzed in terms of the three modes of compliance. Thus, for legal rules to be adhered to, normative compliance is not strictly necessary, but some element of internalization built around important symbols in the system is an important positive contribution. To obtain contractual compliance, legal rules must be equitable and reasonable; to coerce, they must be institutionalized by means of credible negative sanctions. To be implemented, all of these ideas need a central agency, whether it takes the form of the concert of Europe, the League of Nations, the United Nations, or some other form. The central agency will have to do what is needed to build up a basis for all three types of compliance, whether it takes the form of information or propaganda and manipulation of symbols, the administration of services in such a way as to buy loyalty, provision of a clearinghouse of exchanges of all kinds in order to make interdependence under a central organization pay, or the administration of enforcement mechanisms. Crucial for all three types of compliance is the extent to which the central world agency is able to compete with other levels of organization, such as nations, which provide the same kind of basis for compliance but possibly also promote compliance with norms that conflict with those of the world government. It should also be pointed out that any political system will probably need all three types of compliance. Normative compliance alone may not be enough in the long run; the value of a “good conscience” will show a rapidly diminishing return. The right behavior must somehow be made to pay, and if the system runs out of resources for rewards, it may have to resort to force. But force without some basis in normative commitment is tantamount to terror, and terror is notoriously ineffective in the long run. Peace Movements The tremendous disparity between the different approaches to peace that have been described may be interpreted as a sign of basic confusion in thinking on the topic. But it is more likely to be a reflection of the complexity of the problem itself. It may be that, in this respect, peace is somewhat like health: the phenomenon is extremely difficult to grasp as a whole, and one’s approach therefore tends to be determined by the kind of peace—or health—he is interested in obtaining. Clearly, there are good reasons for these differences of interest; in fact, a peace plan can be classified not only according to its content but also according to who put it forward. This may be a person or an organization, located either in the decision-making nucleus of the world system or in the center of a society or on the periphery of a society. If the last is the case, the proposal is likely to bear some of the imprints of marginality: an absolutist and moralistic, as opposed to a gradualist and pragmatic, approach; a tendency toward single-factor, as opposed to multiple-factor, thinking; and a tendency to confuse organizational levels, so that the training and capacity of the plan’s author are made to seem more important than the possible merits of the plan itself (Galtung 1966). Thus, psychologists will talk about personality and aggression, sociologists about conflict-inducing social structures, educators about the school as the pivotal element in peace building—and the result is the well-known collection of single-factor theories, around which one may construct an organization and rally together people who share the belief. Thus, almost all the theories referred to above have found their organizational expression. On the other end are the decision makers in the center of society, who have a gradualist, pragmatic approach and employ multiple-factor thinking. In their effort not to confuse organizational levels their approach becomes so slow, so careful, and so withdrawn from the public eye, that the tension between center and periphery becomes high enough to produce impatience and conflict, leading to demonstrations, party formation, and other forms of protest. The result is the traditional dialogue between center and periphery. The periphery gradually becomes like the center as it gains in power and leaves a certain imprint on the total system; however, in turn, a new protest movement is created at the periphery. In other words, peace movements, like other social movements, follow the “church-sect” cycle. Since the periphery—the peace movement—is split into single-factor organizations, the world does not get a multiple-approach impact from the movement. Historical development The fact that there are around 1,500 groups working for disarmament and peace (International Peace/Disarmament Directory [1962] 1963) suggests, among other things, an enormous democratization of the struggle for peace; even though their total membership may be small, these organizations do provide open forums for expressions of public opinion. Such forums are relatively new. Although the organized peace movement can be said to have begun in the United States in 1815 (Angell 1935), it was not until 1843 that the first international peace congress was held (in London). The Nobel peace prize (instituted in 1897) also stimulated much interest in the problem of peace. The history of the award repays study. The Nobel Foundation Calendar of 19631964 (see Nobelstifteltsen, Stockholm, Prix Nobel)listed 59 prizes, of which 13 went to the United States, 8 to France, and 7 to Britain; thus, 3 countries took 46 per cent of the prizes, 12 other countries took 40 per cent, and the remaining 8 prizes went to institutions, such as the Red Cross. There is thus a Western bias in the geographical distribution of the Nobel prizes, and it is not surprising that the socialist countries have instituted their own prizes for peace, the best known being the Lenin prize. The peace movement received a terrible shock when World War i proved how much stronger was attachment to the nation than adherence to internationalist and pacifist principles and how much stronger was the fear of the sanctions of one’s own government and compatriots than of the sanctions of fellow members of organizations. The resolutions passed at the Universal Peace Congress in Geneva in 1912 and at the congress of the Second Socialist International in Stuttgart in 1907 were strongly pacifist, but the weakness of the peace movement then is also its weakness today: loyalty to the peace movement is based on normative compliance alone, not on contractual or coercive compliance. In times of crises, only extremely idealistic or very peripherally located people are likely to remain faithful to their ideals. World War n provided the peace movement with a new abundance of examples of this fact. However, this does not mean that the peace movement has no impact. Indeed, it serves as an imperfect substitute for a foreign-policy national assembly, since public opinion probably has less influence on foreignpolicy than on domestic-policy decisions in many countries. Peace research Since the late 1950s and early 1960s there has been an intensification of the more academic study of peace and a drive toward profession alization of the peace movement (Galtung 1963). The Repertory on Disarmament and Peace Research Institutions lists close to one hundred institutions in twenty countries as being active in the field; and two scientific quarterlies, the Journal of Conflict Resolution (edited at the Center for Conflict Resolution, University of Michigan) and the Journal of Peace Research (edited at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo), are devoted to research in this interdisciplinary field. One major difficulty with peace research is the problem whether the future will be a continuous extrapolation of the past or qualitatively different. For instance, it can be argued that the model for the disarmament process currently under discussion—the model that presupposes balance and control —probably has few, if any, counterparts in the history of the past. Another set of models for peace preservation, namely, balance-of-power models and collective security systems, have shown very severe limitations in the past. But can one assume that if a structure has not appeared in the past, it is because it is not viable or that if a structure has failed in the past, it will also fail in the future? Or if one studied how city-states and nation-states have successfully reduced their armaments in the past (probably more through normative and contractual than through coercive compliance), could this be a guide to future action? Acceptance of this simple inductive approach might mean that peace research would become merely a scientific-sounding pretext for imposing the past on the future. Johan Galtung [Directly related are the entriesDisarmament; International Conflict Resolution; Pacifism; War, article onThe Study of War. Other relevant material may be found inConflict; Diplomacy; Foreign Policy; Systems Analysis, article onInternational Systems; and in the biography ofRichardson.] Bibliography Angell, Norman 1935 Peace Movements. Volume 12, pages 41-47 in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.New York: Macmillan. Berelson, Bernard; and Steiner, Gary A. 1964 Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings.New York: Harcourt. Broch, Tom; and Galtung, Johan 1966 Belligerence Among the Primitives: A Re-analysis of Quincy Wright’s Data. Journal of Peace Research 3:33-45. Burton, John W. 1965 International Relations: A General Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press. Coleman, James S. 1957 Community Conflict. A publication of the Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press. Coser, Lewis A. 1956 The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, III.: Free Press. Deutsch, Karl W. 1966 Power and Communication in International Society. Pages 300-316 in Ciba Foundation, Conflict in Society. Edited by Anthony de Reuck and Julie Knight. London: Churchill. Doob, Leonard W. 1960 Becoming More Civilized: A Psychological Exploration. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Eckstein, Harry 1961 A Theory of Stable Democracy. Center of International Studies, Research Monograph No. 10. Princeton Univ., Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Etzioni, Amitai 1961 A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press. Galtung, Johan 1963 International Programs of Behavioral Science Research in Human Survival. Pages 226-247 in Behavioral Science and Human Survival.Edited by Milton Schwebel. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science & Behavior Books. Galtung, Johan 1964a Balance of Power and the Problem of Perception. Inquiry 7:277-294. Galtung, Johan 1964b A Structural Theory of Aggression. Journal of Peace Research 1:95-119. Galtung, Johan 1965 On the Meaning of Nonviolence. Journal of Peace Research 2:228-257. Galtung, Johan 1966 Attitudes to Different Forms of Disarmament. Pages 210-238 in International Peace Research Association, Studies in Peace Research.Assen (Netherlands): Gorcum. Haas, Ernst B. 1964 Beyond the Nation-state: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford Univ. Press. Haas, Michael 1965 Societal Approaches to the Study of War. Journal of Peace Research 2:307-323. Hemleben, Sylvester J. 1943 Plans for World Peace Through Six Centuries. Univ. of Chicago Press. Hinsley, Francis H. 1963 Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Between States. Cambridge Univ. Press. International Peace /Disarmament Directory. 1—. 1962—. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Wilkie. Thales You Just Need To Be A Great Engineer. You don't need to be a tech ninja or guru to work at Thales, you need to be a great engineer. Discover our opportunities! SPONSORED BY THALES LEARN MORE Kaplan, Morton A. 1957 System and Process in International Politics. New York: Wiley. Klineberg, Otto 1964 The Human Dimension in International Relations. New York: Holt. Murty, K. S.; and Bouquet, A. C. 1960 Studies in the Problems of Peace. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Nobelstiftelsen, StockholmPrix Nobel. → Published since 1901. Richardson, Lewis F. 1960a Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War. Edited by Nicolas Rashevsky and Ernesto Trucco. Pittsburgh: Boxwood; Chicago: Quadrangle. Richardson, Lewis F. 1960b Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Edited by Quincy Wright and C. C. Lienau. Pittsburgh: Boxwood. Schelling, Thomas C. 1960 The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Sorokin, Pitirim A. (1937-1941) 1962 Social and Cul- tural Dynamics. 4 vols. Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press. → Volume 1: Fluctuation of Forms of Art.Volume 2: Fluctuation of Systems of Truth, Ethics, and Law. Volume 3: Fluctuation of Social Relationships, War, and Revolution. Volume 4: Basic Problems, Principles, and Methods. Wright, Quincy (1942) 1965 A Study of War. 2d ed. Univ. of Chicago Press. Wynner, Edith; and Lloyd, Georgia (1944) 1949 Searchlight on Peace Plans. New ed. New York: Dutton. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Peace Views 3,238,173 Updated May 21 2018 PEACE PEACE . In a negative sense religious traditions speak of peace as freedom from war and unrest. Peace can also take a positive meaning of well-being and fulfillment as goals of religious and social life. In ancient Greece the word for peace, eirēnē, meant primarily the opposite of war, and even when personified as a goddess, Eirene had no mythology and little cult. The Roman Pax was also a vague goddess, scarcely heard of before the age of Augustus and then taken as the representation of quiet at home and abroad. The Pax Romana expressed the absence of internal strife, although Seneca remarked that whole tribes and peoples had been forced to change their habitats. In ancient Hebrew thought, peace (shālōm ) was not only the absence of war but well-being if not prosperity. A famous passage that appears twice in the Bible (Is. 2:2–4, Mi. 4:1–3) describes all nations going to Jerusalem to learn the divine law, beating their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, abandoning their swords, and learning war no more. Micah adds that every man would sit under his vine and fig tree, an ideal picture of a small landholder in a tiny state between rival superpowers. In expectation of a better future the ideal Davidic king is called Prince of Peace, and his government is described as having boundless dominion and peace (Is. 9:6–7). The Israelites used the Hebrew word shālōm to refer to material and spiritual conditions that were joined together. Psalm 85 envisages God speaking peace to his people, righteousness and peace united, and the land yielding its increase. It is not only war that destroys peace but also covetousness, false dealing, and priests and prophets who practice abominations and say "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:14). To the Israelites peace was a social concept; it was visible and produced a harmonious relationship in the family, in local society, and between nations. The salutation shālōm expressed the positive aim of encouraging friendly cooperation and living together for mutual benefit, and such a greeting, in use from the times of the judges and David, was later employed by both Jews and Christians. The Arabic word salām, meaning "peace" or "health," has been in general use as a greeting or salutation since the time of the Qurʾān. One of its oldest chapters speaks of the coming down of the Qurʾān on "the Night of Power" and concludes that "it is peace until the rising of the dawn" (97:5). God calls people to the "abode of peace" (dār al-salām ), both in this life and in the next (10:26). It is as a salutation that the Qurʾān has most to say about salām. The prophet Muḥammad said "Peace be upon you" (al-salām ʿalaykum ) at the beginning of a message, and this was reckoned to be the greeting given to the blessed when they entered Paradise. It became the common salutation in the Islamic world, and the Qurʾān recommends its use. The salām formula, thought to be used by angels, is uttered after the names of previous prophets—Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the like. In Islamic ritual, the prayer for the blessing of God and peace on the Prophet, the worshiper, those present, and pious servants of God precedes the confession of faith. At the end of formal prayer the worshiper turns to the right and to the left, invoking the peace and mercy of God. Liturgical use helped to make the peace formula characteristic of Islam, and it is recommended to return the greeting with an additional blessing, following the Qurʾanic verse "When you receive a greeting, respond with a better" (4:86–88). Islamic eschatology, in popular tradition, has held to the hope of a future deliverer who would rule according to the example of the Prophet and give stability to Islam for a short millennium before the end of all earthly things: The Mahdi, "the guided one," would descend from heaven and fill the earth with equity and justice. In the New Testament both the Gospels and the epistles use the Greek word eirēnē for "peace," although Jesus must have used the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew shālōm, and eirēnē is given the positive sense of the Hebrew. When the apostles were sent out they were instructed to say "Peace be to this house," on entering any house, and, "If a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you again" (Lk. 10:6). The peacemaker was blessed, and the struggling early church was exhorted to "follow after things which make for peace, to edify one another" (Rom. 14:19). The reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles was sought through Christ: "He is our peace, who made both one" (Eph. 2:14). For those under external pressures, peace was a spiritual calm as well as a social benefit, as promised by Christ in his parting words, according to John, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give you, not as the world gives it" (Jn. 14.27). This led on to Paul's view of the peace of God that passes human understanding, and the "fruits of the Spirit" included peace among virtues such as patience, kindness, and forbearance. In New Testament eschatology there is little detail of the future, except in the Apocalypse of John (Revelation ). Instead there are general statements about the ultimate triumph of good, when "God shall be all in all." Meanwhile the kingdom of God is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). In the history of the church peace has been seen on the one hand as calm for the soul and on the other as social and political reconciliation and the establishment of a just order. This has led to doctrines of a just war or to judgments on social change, but more general statements speak of individual and communal well-being. Augustine of Hippo in his City of God (De civitate Dei 413–426) remarks that peace is the purpose of war between nations, for no one would seek war by peace, but as the peace of humankind is an orderly obedience to the eternal law of God, so the peace of God's city is "the perfect union of hearts, in the enjoyment of God and of one another in God" (19.13). Peace is our final good; eternity in peace, or peace in eternity, for the good of peace is the greatest wish of the world and the most welcome when it comes. The salutation Peace is frequent in the New Testament, and it entered into the liturgy. In the traditional canon of the Latin Mass the priest said or chanted both "Dominus vobiscum" ("The Lord be with you") and "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum" ("The Peace of the Lord be always with you"). In modern times there has been a revival of "the peace," or "giving the peace," in many churches. For example, the peace may be given throughout the congregation with the words "the peace of the Lord," and this is often accompanied by the shaking of hands or even kissing in peace. Both social and personal ideals of peace have been important concerns of Chinese religious leaders and thinkers. The Daoist classic Dao de jing comments that one who seeks to help a ruler by the Dao will oppose all conquest by force of arms. Not only will the Daoist be against war and weapons, but will object to imposed rules and government, even to morality and wisdom, because the Daoist believes that in simplicity and fewness of desires evil would disappear. The Daoist should adopt a peaceful or passive attitude, "actionless activity" (wuwei), and by such wordless teaching will control all creatures, and everything will be duly regulated. Colin A. Ronan (1978) has noted that Joseph Needham rejected the customary translation of wuwei as "inaction" (p. 98). The Daoist, he maintained, is not idle or passive, but is natural. He or she should refrain from acting against the grain, from trying to make things perform unsuitable functions, from exerting force when a perceptive person would see that force must fail. There is support for this view in The Book of Huainan (120 bce), which criticizes those who claim that the person who acts with wuwei does not speak or move or will not be driven by force. No sages, it says, gave such an interpretation, but the proper view of such quiet activity is that no personal prejudice should check the Dao, and no desires lead the proper courses of techniques astray. Nonaction does not mean doing nothing; it means allowing everything to act according to its nature. In popular Daoism the ideals of a past golden age of peace, and of one yet to come, were expressed in the Taiping Dao, the Way of great peace, which arose about 175 ce. Some of its doctrines had been stated in a lost scripture decades earlier, the Taiping jing (Classic of great peace). Its writer, Yu Ji, was a preacher and healer in Shantung province who was executed about 197, although his followers believed that he had become an immortal. The new movement, the Way of Great Peace, was established by Zhang Jue, who founded in 175 ce an organization of which he was the "Heavenly General." He held vast public ceremonies at which the sick confessed their sins and were healed by faith. What is just as important, Zhang Jue sent missionaries to convert people in central and eastern China to the way of peace and healing. Crowds flocked to this movement, probably because the troubled times of warfare gave rise to the longing for a millenarian era reminiscent of the mythical golden age of peace. There was also dissatisfaction with the coldness of state Confucianism, and a yearning for a more personal religion and a more just society. The Way of Great Peace became very popular, and eight provinces were converted by its missionaries. The central government was alarmed and prepared countermeasures. The Daoists were warned, and on the day that the governmental action began they decided to revolt. The rebels wore yellow kerchiefs on their heads, thus giving rise to the movement's other name, Yellow Turbans. Zhang Jue and his brothers were caught and executed, but it was many years before the rebellion was finally suppressed. Wasabi Hidden Cloud Storage Fees Discover the truth behind hidden fees in data storage. Unveiling the secrets to avoid sneaky charges, ensuring cost-effective solutions. SPONSORED BY WASABI LEARN MORE In the nineteenth century the Taiping Rebellion swept across China and almost destroyed the crumbling Manzhu dynasty. It raged from 1850 to 1865 and was put down only with the help of foreign powers, notably the British, and with a catastrophic loss of some twenty million lives. The leader of the rebellion, Hong Xiuquan, sought to establish the Taiping, the Great Peace, under a purely Chinese dynasty, but he was inspired by both Chinese and Christian ideas. The Taiping would come in the cycle of history but would resemble the kingdom of heaven, where all people would worship the heavenly father. Hong proclaimed his regime the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace and himself took the title Heavenly King. Nanjing was captured in 1853 and renamed Heavenly Capital, but internal divisions and external attacks led to its collapse. By 1864 Hong had despaired of his cause; he took poison and died, and his followers were overwhelmed. Later Chinese attempts at reform and peace through strength occurred, but not all were inspired by Daoist ideals. Indian views of peace are both personal and social, positive and negative. Many sacred Hindu texts open with the sacred syllable oṃ, followed for invocation and meditation by a threefold repetition of the Sanskrit word for peace: śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ. (These three words appear at the end of T. S. Eliot's famous poem The Waste Land, 1922.) The peace invoked in the Sanskrit texts is one of tranquillity, quiet, calmness of mind, absence of passion, aversion of pain, and indifference to the objects of pleasure and pain. In the Bhagavadgītā the despondency of the warrior Arjuna, with which the poem opens, comes from envisaging the destruction of human beings and order (dharma ) that war would bring. Arjuna is moved by compassion, declares that he would rather be killed than kill other beings, and lays down his weapons. His charioteer, the god Kṛṣṇa, gives several answers to Arjuna's problems, the chief one of which is that a soldier may kill the body but cannot kill the soul, or self, which is indestructible and immortal, without beginning or end. This answer ignores the question of Arjuna's compassion. The true yogin, whether he be a warrior or not, should be detached; he should act but remain unmoved by the result of his actions. Thus he can "attain the peace that culminates in nirvāṇa and rests in me [i.e., God]" (6.15). Kindness to all beings is occasionally suggested in the Gītā, but the general picture is one of peace and tranquillity unmoved by the affairs of the world. The Jains in India have been noted for their advocacy of nonviolence, or not killing (ahiṃsā ), and some of their temples today bear the inscription (in English as well as in Sanskrit), "Nonviolence is the highest religion." They teach that nirvāṇa is an indescribable and passionless state beyond this world, at the ceiling of the universe. The Buddhists, contemporary with the Jains, have also taught nirvāṇa and have done so in negative terms. A Buddhist compendium of teachings, The Questions of King Milinda, agrees that nirvāṇa cannot be indicated in form or shape, in duration or size, by simile or argument. Yet it does exist: "There is nirvāṇa "; it is lofty and exalted, inaccessible to the passions and unshakable, bringing joy and shedding light. Positive social efforts for peace were illustrated in the words and actions of the most famous Indian ruler, the Buddhist emperor Aśoka, in the third century bce, as revealed by extant inscriptions on pillars and rocks. After thousands of people had been killed in his war against the Kalingas, Aśoka felt remorse, renounced war, sought reconciliation, and wished that "all beings should be unharmed, self-controlled, calm in mind, and gentle." Fighting was forbidden, as was all killing of animals for food or sacrifice. Medical services were provided for human beings and animals, useful herbs were planted, wells were dug, and trees were planted along roads to shelter people and animals. Local rulers were instructed to tour among their people and teach the dharma of obedience to parents, generosity to priests, prohibition of killing, ownership of "the minimum of property." In modern times Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) was noted for teaching ahiṃsā, but not just as a negative way to peace and justice. He coined the term satyāgraha (literally, "truth insistence"), defining it as "soul force" or "the force which is born of truth and love or nonviolence." Gandhi sought to follow the New Testament injunction to return good for evil as well as to follow the Jain command of nonviolence. He argued that soul force was the only method by which home rule could be regained for India and that it was "superior to the force of arms." Further, in a message to Hindus and Muslims on communal unity Gandhi insisted that politics should be approached in a religious spirit. He ended his speech with these words: "I ask all lovers of communal peace to pray that the God of truth and love may give us both the right spirit and the right word, and use us for the good of the dumb millions." See Also Ahiṃsā; Nonviolence; Taiping; War and Warriors, overview article. Bibliography Biblical teaching about peace can be found in many books, and useful articles are included in A Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (London, 1983) and A Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Philadelphia, 1967). Islamic texts are listed in the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (1953; reprint, Leiden, 1974). Indian and Chinese teachings with selections from texts are easily found in Sources of Indian Tradition and Sources of Chinese Tradition (New York, 1958 and 1960), edited by Wm. Theodore de Bary and others. Daoist movements are described by Holmes Welch in The Parting of the Way: Lao Zu and the Daoist Movement (London, 1957), and informative chapters on Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism are included in Colin A. Ronan's Shorter Science and Civilisation in China (New York, 1978), an abridgment of Joseph Needham's text from volumes 1 and 2 of the larger work. Geoffrey Parrinder (1987) Encyclopedia of Religion Parrinder, Geoffrey Peace Views 2,594,065 Updated Jun 08 2018 PEACE Humans have always prized and sought peace. The conditions believed to foster peace and the very conception of peace, however, have varied in different periods and cultures. In this article, we examine contemporary scholarly understandings of peace and how to achieve and maintain peace (Barash 1991; Galtung 1996; Stephenson 1994). In particular, we discuss the views of American sociologists and other social scientists who regard themselves as engaged in peace studies, peace research, conflict resolution, and related fields. The concept of peace is contested. Some analysts use the term "peace" in opposition to war; this is negative peace, defined as the absence of direct physical violence. Other analysts stress positive peace, defined as social relations marked by considerable equality in life chances, by justice, or even by harmony. Some writers use the term "peace" to refer only to relations among global actors in a world system, while others include relations among persons and groups as well as among countries. Finally, some observers regard peace as a stable condition and others think of it as many never-ending processes. In this article, we discuss certain aspects of positive peace, while focusing on negative peace. Furthermore, we emphasize international peace, but also consider large-scale relations within societies. With these focuses, we examine three categories of peace processes: (1) building peace, developing processes that prevent the emergence of destructive conflicts; (2) making peace, developing processes that contribute to deescalation and settlement of conflicts; and (3) keeping and restoring peace, fostering processes that help maintain peace and construct equitable relations. BUILDING PEACE The analysts providing the research and theorizing examined here and in the next sections vary in the relative importance they give to variables and conditions from different sources: from within one or more of the contending parties, from the relationship among them, and from their social context. Each is discussed in turn. Internal Factors. Considerable work has been done about the processes and the conditions within countries that contribute to international peace or war and within large-scale groups that contribute to societal peace or destructive conflict. One such body of work stresses the role of self-serving elites in arousing, sustaining, and exacerbating antagonisms against other countries or groups. For example, during the years of the Cold War, many observers analyzed the existence and effects of a political–military–industrial complex in promoting the arms buildup in the United States and in the Soviet Union (Mills 1956; Sanders 1983). More recently, peace workers have been directing their attention to political and intellectual elites who develop and promote ethno-nationalist ideologies. The way such ideologies are based on a socially constructed history and shared community is the subject of considerable analyses (Anderson 1991). In addition, many analysts stress the contribution that such ideologies make to the emergence and exacerbation of bitter fights and of genocide (Anthony Smith 1991). Finally, observers often examine how military, political, and intellectual leaders promote such ideologies for their personal benefit. Peace workers believe that analyzing such processes demystifies them and their products. Furthermore, they believe that such unmasking undermines the effectiveness of those seeking to mobilize followers to wage struggles that deny legitimacy to their opponents. This kind of critical analysis is a major form of peace research. Another large body of writing about building peace examines the education and socialization of members of a society or group in ways that promote peace. This includes research and theorizing about the ways this has been done and about the ways that it might be done. The feminist scholarly perspective is an influential source for important contributions to this body of work. For example, using this perspective, the invisibility of women in studies of conflicts and peace processes becomes apparent, and feminist scholars provide new insights into international and domestic conflicts by paying attention to the roles women play in such conflicts (Enloe 1989). Furthermore, considerable research demonstrates consistent differences between women and men regarding support for the use of military means in international conflicts. The popular expectations, however, tend to exaggerate the degree to which men and women differ in their conduct in conflicts and negotiations (Stephenson 1996; Taylor and Miller 1994). Feminist work tends to emphasize that the gender differences that do exist result significantly from past socialization of males and females into gender roles and from patriarchal social structures. Men learn to be relatively competitive and hierarchical, while women emphasize integrative relations. The feminist perspective fosters a vision that social relationships could be less patriarchal and therefore less unjust and less prone to destructive conflict than they generally have been. How language and imagery are used to give meaning to conflicts helps frame conflicts and thus affects how they are waged. For example, analysts examine how the mass media and films contribute to an overreliance on violence and the threat of violence to wage conflicts (Gibson 1995). Such work also illuminates the processes of dehumanization of opponents in social conflicts, as well as revealing how such dehumanization contributes to the destructive escalation of struggles. Since conflicts are inherent in social life, the role of social structure and culture in shaping how conflicts are waged is highly significant for building peace. Analysts are giving increasing attention to variations in the repertoire of methods used to conduct conflicts, including constructive ones, that are available for different people in different historical periods (Tilly 1978). Efforts to study and to train people in the methods of nonviolent action and problem-solving conflict resolution methods therefore contribute to building peace internationally and domestically (Kriesberg 1998). Relational Factors. Several aspects of the relations among global and among societal actors affect the likelihood that those actors will interact peacefully. One long-standing area of peace studies has been the effect of integration between societies and of sectors within societies. Integration is indicated by the high rate of exchange of goods, peoples, and ideas across societal and group lines, relative to exchanges within. Research findings support the generalization that such integration enhances mutual security and reduces the probability of countries' waging wars or threatening each other's security. Increased integration not only creates greater bonds of mutual interest and identity, but also improves communication and exchanges that parties regard as equitable. Furthermore, research on ethnic and other cleavages within societies also indicates the importance of integration, cross-cutting ties, and shared identities in preventing such cleavages from manifesting themselves in destructive conflicts (Dahrendorf 1959; Kriesberg 1998). Considerable evidence has been reported indicating that democratic countries do not make war against each other (Gleditsch and Heegre 1997). Although the finding and particularly its interpretation are contested, the finding seems robust, given particular definitions of democracy and war. The finding may be explained by the tendency of governments in democratic societies to accord legitimacy to each other and credibility to each other's claims. Furthermore, negotiating differences may tend to be regarded as more acceptable and more skillfully practiced in democratic than in nondemocratic societies. Contextual Factors. The social context within which possible adversaries interact certainly affects their relations. The context includes the social system within which adversaries interact, including the overall level of integration, the nature of institutional structures, the likelihood of external intervention in conflicts, and the kind of norms that are shared. The concepts of positive peace and structural violence help in understanding the relationship between social context and peace. Unlike personal violence, structural violence is indirect. It refers to the "avoidable denial of what is needed to satisfy fundamental needs" (Galtung 1980, p. 67). Thus, structural conditions may damage and cut short people's lives by restrictions of human rights or by malnutrition and illness, while other people using available knowledge and resources do not suffer the same deprivations. Such inequities are built into the global order and constitute negative peace. This influential idea has stimulated various studies, particularly regarding conditions in peripheral or underdeveloped regions. The literature about the development of the world system and of colonialism obviously bears on this matter (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997). The expansion in the number, scope, and size of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) is a subject of growing sociological attention, reflecting INGOs' increasing global importance. Many kinds of transnational organizations perform activities and are arenas for interactions that supplement or even compete with states and with international governmental organizations. INGOs include multinational corporations, religious and ideological organizations, professional and trade associations, trade union federations, and ethnic associations. These groupings provide important bases of transnational identity and action (Smith et al. 1997). Critical analysts view these developments as part of a new global order in which a transnational elite exercises hegemonic domination. Their work stresses the increasing global inequality and the development of a transnational elite that fosters globalization and profits from it. From this perspective, the U.S. government's promotion of democracy throughout the world is a method of maintaining order while promoting free markets and capitalism. Democracy, in this context, means polyarchy, a system in which a small group rules and mass participation is limited to choosing leaders in managed elections (Robinson 1996, p. 49). International and supranational governmental organizations are also taking on increasing importance; witness the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations after the Cold War. Social scientists, including sociologists, have examined the conditions in which such institutions emerge and survive, how they serve to improve the quality of life, and how they may help to prevent conflicts from erupting and escalating destructively (Etzioni 1965). The people of the world are already highly interdependent and are becoming increasingly so. This is true at the societal and at the global level. The flow of goods, capital, labor, ideas, and information is ever faster, ever less expensive, and ever more extensive. Consequently, the people of the world share problems relating to environmental threats, governmental abuse and brutal conflicts spurring large-scale refugee flows, dislocations resulting from rapid social change, and challenging social relations among groups that are culturally different. These phenomena contribute to the growing homogenization of the world. More and more people share images, ideas, and norms relating to consumer preferences, forms of entertainment, the protection of human rights, and economic development. But these phenomena also generate particularistic reactions and threaten destructive conflicts within and between societies. Experiences with these phenomena around the world and within each society are not the same for everyone. Some people reject the spreading secularism and the dominance of Western, particularly American, ideas and power. The empirical contradictions and the moral dilemmas arising from these developments are increasingly matters of inquiry among peace workers (Boulding 1990). MAKING PEACE Recent peace work has focused on limiting the destructive escalation of conflicts, fostering transitions toward deescalation, and conducting negotiations that help end conflicts constructively. Internal, relational, and contextual factors contribute to these ways of making peace. Internal Factors. Among internal factors, sociological work attends particularly to popular forces that pressure governments to move toward accommodations with external adversaries. This interest combines with the growth in theory and research about social movements to generate many studies of peace movements (Lofland 1993; Marullo and Lofland 1990). Analyses of campaigns against nuclear weapons and other evidence indicate that, at least within the United States and western Europe, public opinion and organized public pressure have influenced governments, often in the direction of peacemaking (Joseph 1993; Klandermans 1991). In addition, certain internal structural factors can help leaders to recognize the needs of the other side and to communicate responsiveness. Such factors may include leaders who are accorded legitimacy, openness to considering alternative courses of action, sources of good information about outside groups, and norms limiting intolerance. Such factors and specific policy-making procedures can help limit escalation, manage crises, and negotiate settlements (Wilensky 1967). Relational Factors. Most work on peacemaking focuses on the relations between adversaries, including analyses of tacit bargaining, formal and informal negotiations, and providing mutual reassurance about security. The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and their alliances during the Cold War, has been the subject of considerable study. Contributions have been made about the extent to which that conflict and the proxy wars associated with it were based on misunderstandings and on processes of dehumanization that fostered conflict escalation (Gamson and Modigliani 1971). Other writing has drawn from and contributes to studies of problem-solving conflict resolution and conflict transformation. This work includes the analysis of ways of waging struggles constructively so that escalation is limited, and so that possibilities of reaching mutually acceptable accommodations are not foreclosed. This is an argument examined in studies of the use of nonviolent action, as in the American civil rights struggle and in many other conflicts (Powers and Vogele 1997; Wehr et al. 1994; Sharp 1973). Work on relational aspects of peacemaking also includes analyses of conciliatory gestures and other initiatives to deescalate conflicts, of the management of crises, of the transformation of intractable conflicts into tractable ones, and of strategies and techniques for negotiating mutually acceptable agreements (Patchen 1988). It also includes the efforts by persons in one camp to exchange information and possible options for peacemaking with their counterparts in the opposing camp, through conferences, dialogue groups, and ongoing workshops. The ending of the Cold War illustrates the success of some of these methods (Kriesberg 1992). Specifically, such methods include negotiating mutual assurances that vital interests would not be threatened, as was done in the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, resulting in the Helsinki Accords, signed in 1975. Included in the Accords was a shared commitment to norms, for example, about protecting human rights, which fostered increased mutual exchanges. In addition, the American and Soviet military alliances established confidence-building measures and later restructured their military forces to be less provocative. Nonofficial channels such as the Pugwash meetings and the Dartmouth conference assisted in reaching agreements that helped to transform the Cold War. These developments have served as inspirations for efforts to limit or transform other regional conflicts. The transformation of the conflict in South Africa about apartheid is another important illustration of the effectiveness of some of these methods (Kriesberg 1998). For example, the African National Congress (ANC), with the leadership of Nelson Mandela, consistently pursued nonracist goals, thus offering assurance that whites were and would remain recognized as South Africans. The means used in the struggle to end apartheid were considered in that light; they were initially nonviolent, and even when the decision to wage armed struggle was undertaken, terrorism was excluded. Informal and unofficial communications prepared the adversaries for working out an agreement that was acceptable to all the major adversaries in the seemingly intractable conflict in South Africa (van der Merwe 1989). Of course, in some cases when challengers initiated nonviolent struggles, they were repressed or the conflicts escalated destructively. Such cases, as in China and in Northern Ireland, deserve and have received attention. However, there are many case studies and quantitative analyses indicating that reliance on violence and threat of violence is frequently counterproductive and often mutually destructive (Vasquez 1993). Contextual Relations. One important aspect of a conflict's context, affecting its transformation and its peaceful settlement, is the involvement of intermediaries. Analysts using a sociological approach give attention to the role of nonofficial persons and groups as well as official intermediaries. Such intermediaries often provide a variety of mediating services, including helping bring adversaries to the negotiating table, facilitating meetings, aiding in developing new options, building support for an agreement, and helping to implement and to sustain an agreement that is reached (Burton 1990; Laue 1973). Persons and groups providing such services vary greatly in the way adversaries understand their role and in the resources they bring with them. For example, unofficial mediators with relatively few material resources may be able to provide exploratory services relatively well, since their engagement generally involves low risks for the antagonists. Mediators with a major stake in the fight and with great resources can provide compensations and assurances that are relatively important in closing negotiations and implementing them. The U.S. government and U.S. private citizens have played important mediating roles in many international and even internal conflicts in other countries (Kriesberg 1992). American mediation in Israeli-Arab conflicts has been particularly extensive and often crucially effective. U.S. secretaries of state and U.S. presidents have conducted major mediating efforts, often using considerable resources to induce the negotiating parties to conclude an agreement and to implement it. Among the notable agreements reached are those mediated by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974 between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Syria, and the 1978 Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt, mediated by President Jimmy Carter and leading to the two countries' signing a peace treaty. Nonofficial persons and groups from the United States have also provided mediation services, for example in the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Nonofficial channels have been particularly important due to the long-standing refusal of the Israeli government to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinians. Jewish and Palestinian Americans have often had the knowledge, interest, and contacts to provide useful channels for exploring possible options and ways of taking steps toward official mediation and negotiation. Mediation efforts, obviously, do not always succeed. Many efforts never result in agreements. In some cases, agreements are reached but not ratified or not implemented. On occasion, agreements are followed by disastrous breakdowns, as happened in Rwanda in 1994. Of course, failing to mediate probably would not have yielded better results. Nevertheless, this indicates that we need to know much more about the type of mediation that tends to be effective at each stage of various kinds of conflicts. Among the many other relevant contextual factors, we note only a few. First, changes in prevailing norms and understandings sometimes embolden one party in a conflict and undermine the faith of its opponent. The result is that a conflict that has long persisted can move toward resolution. For example, changing views about human rights and democracy contributed to ending the civil wars in Central America and apartheid in South Africa. The context also includes a wide range of international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, with varying capabilities of contributing to peacemaking. The mass media are also increasing the global attention to especially terrible events at particular times. Finally, the increasing availability of weapons of all kinds enables more and more people to challenge existing conditions, as well as enabling those in authority to resort to violent means of control. KEEPING AND RESTORING PEACE The recent transformation and settlement of protracted international and societal conflicts and the radical transformation of previously authoritarian and repressive societies have heightened attention to the challenges of building postconflict relations that are enduring and just (Lederach 1997). Changes within one or more antagonist camps and between former antagonists are crucial in meeting these challenges. In recent years, analysts have given particular attention to the role of intermediaries, standards of human rights, and other elements of the antagonists' social context. Internal Factors. A fundamental change in ways of thinking among members of one or more antagonistic sides can be a powerful factor in producing an enduring peace between them. This does sometimes happen. For example, most Germans after the defeat of Nazism repudiated what they themselves had believed and done; instead, they welcomed beliefs, values, and institutions shared with the victors. To some extent, a similar transformation occurred among Russians as the Cold War ended. As a result of the American civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, most southern American whites became convinced that they were wrong to resist ending the Jim Crow system of discrimination. Similarly, most South African whites would now concur that the ending of apartheid was right and just. Changes in internal social structure also are frequently crucial. Countries that have had internal conditions engendering overreliance on military means and goals that threatened vital interests of other countries may reduce their external threat only after undergoing a fundamental internal restructuring. The restructuring may entail civilian control of the military and the development of a civil society and democratic institutions. Peaceful accommodations in postconflict relations within a country may also depend upon fundamental changes in one or more sides of the past conflict. This occurs as governments change or as the leadership of an ethnic, a religious, or a class movement undergoes change. Relational Factors. Traditionally, efforts to restore peace after a conflict ends include policies to redress the grievances that were viewed as the conflict's source. For communal differences within a country, this may entail more autonomy for citizens with different languages or religions and provisions for popular participation in determining the form and degree of autonomy. For example, during the early 1950s, the status of Puerto Rico in relationship to the rest of the United States was being reconstituted. A Puerto Rican nationalist group resorted to violence in seeking independence. The suppression of violent attacks while avoiding general repression, the availability of a legitimate electoral political process, social and economic improvements, and programs of integration and autonomy, including cultural nationalism, combined to produce a generally peaceful relationship in which alternative arrangements are contested within the established political system. In the United States, a wide variety of methods and strategies are employed to redress grievances and increase equity; they include programs of affirmative action for women and minorities. Such programs, however, have become subject to challenge and have been reduced. This demonstrates the ongoing nature of conflicts related to socially constructed differences between citizens. In recent years, peace workers have been giving considerable attention to fostering mutual understanding and tolerance among peoples with different cultural backgrounds living in the same society (Weiner 1998). This attention extends to reconciliation between peoples who perpetrated gross human rights violations and peoples who suffered profound losses during periods of repression or of violent struggle. Reconciliation is complex, variously combining several processes: (1) acknowledging the truth of what happened; (2) administering justice for past misdeeds, and ensuring future justice and security; (3) extending forgiveness to members of the group that committed wrongs (sometimes in response to expressions of remorse); and (4) accepting responsibility by those who committed wrongs or failed to oppose them. In postapartheid South Africa, for example, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission represents one way to deal with these postconflict issues. A variety of recent developments contribute to reconciliation among the different peoples making up the United States. The truth about discrimination, violent repression, and other injustices regarding Native Americans, African Americans, and other groups has been more frequently acknowledged; this is evident in the mass media, in scholarly work, and in governmental statements. In addition, religious and other community organizations, corporations, and local governments have promoted or provided education programs, workshops, training, and dialogue groups to help persons of different communities learn about each other's experiences and perspectives. Furthermore, long-standing policies have been instituted to strengthen a shared identity as Americans. The conception of Americans as belonging to a single ethnic group or an assortment of people melting into a single ethnicity, however, is changing. Instead, the multicultural character of America is increasingly accepted and even celebrated. Contextual Factors. International organizations are increasingly expected to play critical roles in keeping and restoring the peace. United Nations and other peacekeeping forces have undertaken many more such tasks since the Cold War ended. Regional organizations and individual countries, particularly the United States, have intervened to restore and sustain peace (Moskos 1976; Segal and Segal 1993). Even after an agreement ending civil strife has been reached, the continuing engagement of external governments is crucial for the survival of the agreement and its implementation (Hampson 1996). International nongovernmental humanitarian and advocacy organizations have grown greatly and are often helpful in restoring and maintaining peace (Lederach 1997). They may support the development of civil organizations that sustain peace. Even in the postconflict reconstruction of what was Yugoslavia, some success may be found. For example, many governmental and nongovernmental activities have helped the people in Macedonia manage external threats and the dangers of internal strife. CONCLUSIONS Peace work and the ways of thinking about peace have greatly expanded in recent decades. Peace is increasingly understood to be multidimensional and dynamic. Consequently, the ways of promoting peace are also manifold, and they vary in different settings for different actors. Theory and research about aspects of peace and their promotion draws from and contributes to social theory and social practice. Recent applied and scholarly peace work is based on past experience, but the realities of the current world necessitate fresh thinking and innovative practices. New approaches and ideas are developing, combining knowledge and experience from many new interdisciplinary fields, including conflict resolution, feminist studies, security studies, and international relations. Much more work needs to be done to understand the nature of peace and how its various aspects can be promoted. Peace is not easily advanced, is never total, and is never wholly secure. Whatever peaceful gains may be made must be energetically defended against the inevitable threats arising from new challenges. References Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verson. Barash, David P. 1991 Introduction to Peace Studies. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Boulding, Elise 1990 Building a Global Civic Culture:Education for an Independent World. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Burton, John 1990 Conflict: Resolution and Provention. New York: St. Martin's. Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Dahrendorf, Ralf 1959 Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Enloe, Cynthia 1989 Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Etzioni, Amitai 1965 Political Unification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Galtung, Johan 1980 The True Worlds: A TransnationalPerspective. New York: Free Press. ——1996 Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict,Development and Civilization. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani 1971 Untangling the Cold War. Boston: Little, Brown. Gibson, James William 1995 Warrior Dreams: Violenceand Manhood in Post-Vietnam America. New York: Hill and Wang. Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and Havard Heegre 1997 "Peace and Democracy." Journal of Conflict Resolution 41:283–310. Hampson, Fen Osler 1996 Nurturing Peace: Why PeaceSettlements Succeed of Fail. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace Press. Joseph, Paul 1993 Peace Politics: The United States betweenthe Old and New World Orders. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Klandermans, Bert (ed.) 1991 Peace Movements in Western Europe and the United States. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Kriesberg, Louis 1992 International Conflict Resolution:The US–USSR and Middle East Cases. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ——1998 Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation toResolution. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Laue, James 1973 "Intervenor Roles: A Review." Crisisand Change III:4–5. Lederach, John Paul 1997 Building Peace: SustainableReconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace Press. Lofland, John 1993 Polite Protestors: The American PeaceMovement of the 1980's. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Marullo, Sam, and John Lofland (eds.) 1990 Peace Action in the Eighties. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Mills, C. Wright 1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Moskos, Charles C. 1976 Peace Soldiers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patchen, Martin 1988 Resolving Disputes between Nations:Coercion or Conciliation. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Powers, Roger S., and William B. Vogele (eds.) with Christopher Kruegler and Ronald M. McCarthy, associate eds. 1997 Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from ACT-Up to Women'sSuffrage. New York: Garland. Robinson, William I. 1996 Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization,U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sanders, Jerry W. 1983 Peddlers of Crisis. Boston: South End Press. Segal, David R., and Mady Wechsler Segal 1993 Peacekeepersand their Wives: American Participation in the Multinational Force and Observers. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Sharp, Gene 1973 The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent. Smith, Anthony 1991 National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press. Smith, Jackie, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco (eds.) 1997 Transnational Social Movements and GlobalPolitics: Solidarity beyond the State. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Stephenson, Carolyn M. 1994 "New Approaches to International Peacemaking in the Post–Cold War World." In Michael T. Klare, ed., Peace and World Security Studies:A Curriculum Guide. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Reinner. ——1996 "Gender Differences in Conflict Resolution." In Report of the Expert Group Meeting on PoliticalDecision-Making and Conflict Resolution: The Impact ofGender Difference. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (EGM/PDCR/1996/rep.1). Taylor, Anita, and Judi Beinstein Miller (eds.) 1994 Conflict and Gender. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Tilly, Charles 1978 From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. van der Merwe, Hendrik 1989 Pursuing Justice and Peacein South Africa. New York: Routledge. Vasquez, John A. 1993 The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wehr, Paul, Heidi Burgess, and Guy Burgess (eds.) 1994 Justice without Violence. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner. Weiner, Eugene (ed.) 1998 The Handbook of InterethnicCoexistence. New York: Continuum. Wilensky, Harold L. 1967 Organizational Intelligence:Knowledge and Policy in Goverrnment and Industry. New York: Basic Books. Louis Kriesberg Encyclopedia of Sociology Peace Views 1,747,800 Updated May 21 2018 PEACE. The peace concept has a long history both in the Western and Eastern intellectual traditions. While Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian ideas regarding peace have expanded and changed over time, this is not so much the case in Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist thought. Ancient And Early Christian West For the ancient Hebrews, shalom signified a state of prosperity and well-being as well as security. The Greek word, eirēnē from which we get the word irenic, also denotes the contentment and fruitfulness that comes from concord and harmony. Order (tranquillitas ordinis ), quiet (quies ), and repose (otium ) inhere within the Latin word pax, which Romans sought and maintained as a higher good. Altars to peace were erected by both Greeks and Romans, and the Stoic view of the universe visualized an intrinsic natural harmony, which the virtuous endeavored to restore. In all of these ancient conceptualizations, there was a belief that an Eden-like time of peace had existed before war and disorder disrupted it. Peace, then, was understood mostly as a cessation of the chaos of the created disorder, including war. While it may have been the natural state of humankind at one time, in the early twenty-first century it is an idyll that can only be approximated by a good government that can ensure the security necessary for the achievement of concord and personal well-being. The corresponding development of just-war ideas provided a program for realizing peace, or the restoration of order. Strict guidelines were erected in an attempt to prevent any behavior, especially by governments, that would be disruptive, unless it resulted in the ultimate acquisition of peace. While the earliest Christian writers eschewed war altogether, seeing it as contrary to the "way of love" taught by Christ, by the third century some Christians were fighting in Roman wars without compunction. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) did much to establish the components of the just war that would affect subsequent attitudes toward war in the West; but he also more fully defined what peace meant in a Christian context. For this early church father, peace was largely a spiritual concept. In his famous City of God, as well as in other works, Augustine incorporated the earlier Greek, Roman, and Jewish elements and contended that peace is essentially a right relationship with God that, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, will advance love and concord among human beings. The earthly city is a fallen one and original sin will prevent temporal peace from being established fully; thus, only when Christ returns to judge humanity will true, lasting peace be possible. By removing true temporal peace from the realm of possibility, Augustine bequeathed to the European Middle Ages a concept that was relatively idealistic and millennialistic, even as he sought to mitigate the horrors of warfare with a rigorous just-war doctrine. Western Middle Ages The medieval period produced elaborations of Augustine's idea of peace within the context of crusade and feudal politics. The fall of Rome in the late fifth century led to the foundation of numerous bellicose Germanic kingdoms, which struggled to create a new basis for social and political order while adopting gradually much of the culture of antiquity, especially as the Germanic peoples converted to Christianity. The Western Church in the early Middle Ages required exacting penances for the shedding of blood, which were enhanced in early Carolingian laws (eighth century). In this context it was often difficult to distinguish between war and peace, and peace came to be viewed mostly in practical terms as simply a respite from fighting, sometimes even being depicted as the goddess of victory. The Peace of God (pax Dei ) movement around the turn of the first millennium attempted to regulate warfare through strict papal restrictions on times of fighting and types of weaponry used, violations of which could lead to excommunication or interdict. As feudal relationships came to provide a new negotiated basis for order and peace by the twelfth century, the emerging chivalric code incorporated just-war theory, and set as one of its objectives the perpetuation of order or peace. The inclusion of the Augustinian motivation of love as necessary in any just war helped to ensure that the Christian spiritual ideal regarding peace would remain the goal even if in practical terms it would always remain elusive. The Crusades became the ultimate expression of the just war in continental Europe, but the barbarous actions of the knights who journeyed to the Holy Land compromised the church's credibility in fostering peace, since plenary indulgences seemed to excuse all kinds of violence and manslaughter in this supposedly sacred cause. This situation also created the intellectual climate for the first real investigation of peace as an idea, coming as it did on the heels of charges of corruption against the clergy. While there were new investigations of peace in continental Europe—such as Dante's (1265–1321) vision of a Christian emperor in Monarchia (c. 1315), who established a one-world government that would provide true peace and order—the concept of peace itself underwent little change. Only in England during the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453) is there found a protracted military enterprise provoking extensive criticism of warfare as an institution and, subsequently, suggesting a more complicated notion of what peace itself means. By the 1380s, writers such as John Gower (1330?–1408), Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1342–1400), William Langland (c. 1330–c. 1400), Thomas Hoccleve (1368 or 1369–c. 1450), John Bromyard (d. c. 1390), John Lydgate (c. 1370–c. 1450), and John Wyclif (c. 1330–1384) all were attacking the justifications for wars, and the insincerity behind the putative goal of restoring order and peace. A new typology of peace emerged from this crucible of war and critique that would remain the basis for understanding peace right up until the modern period. First, the original Augustinian idea of personal, spiritual peace remained, along with its association with mercy, love, and patience. But for the critics of war, it was no longer enough to expect spiritual renewal to end the killing on a one-to-one basis. Relying on personal forbearance did not seem to reduce incidence of war at all. The other, older view of peace as order, including its affiliates—quiet, rest, concord, and law—now took on new resonance as writers excoriated the behavior of knights who supposedly followed a strict, peace-loving code of arms. Two new elements of peace, however, which had been introduced by the early fifteenth century, proved to be more practical. First, Wyclif and the Lollards, who could easily be termed pacifists, emphasized the un-Christlikeness of war, and thus attempted to return to an early Christian ideal of peace as reflecting the image of Christ (imago Christi ), demonstrated through acts of love. Unlike the Augustinian concept, here, to live like Christ is to work to stop war and to promote peace, not just in one's spiritual journey, but in society at large. The idea is that Christ believed that peace was possible, and in fact the Gospels say the angels proclaimed peace at his birth. Regardless of whether a cause seems just or not, war is always wrong and it must be a matter of conscience for all Christians to oppose it. By undercutting just-war arguments as inimical to God's way of peace, the concept for the first time emerged from the cloak of impossibility and became an obligatory pursuit. Issuing from this was the related idea that peace offered many practical benefits, thereby stressing its pragmatic nature. Lydgate, Hoccleve, and works such as The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye (c. 1436) equated temporal peace with economic well-being, personal security, and the growth of learning. From the late fifteenth century the value of peace was located increasingly in the language of political economy with its complex associations to the public good, which war was less likely now seen to promote. Renaissance And Reformation Renaissance humanists, especially those in northern Europe who had spent time in England, took the peace imperative and fashioned it into an ethic based on a dedication to the public good, or commonwealth. Desiderius Erasmus (1466?–1536), Thomas More (1478–1535), Juan Luis Vives (1492–1540), and John Colet (1466 or 1467–1519) all published works hostile to war, promoting all four meanings of peace elucidated above. Within the context of emerging nation-states in western Europe, Erasmus, in his Complaint of Peace (1517) and many other works, argued that spiritual peace, embodied in the virtuous Christian prince, would be the foundation of a true and lasting temporal peace. His somewhat Stoic view of the kinship of humanity emphasized the concordia aspect of pax, which would lead to a personal closeness to God, Christlike behavior, an absence of strife, and the practical rewards of greater happiness such as the promotion of learning and economic prosperity. While events tended to make humanist pacifists appear idealistic in their own day, their endeavors enshrined peace as an uncontested value and its advancement a virtuous pursuit. The Protestant reformers, many of whom were also humanists, came to stress the obligations to pursue peace as well through their literal interpretation of the Bible, although they were less optimistic concerning the depraved nature of humankind. One group, however, the Anabaptists, took Christ's words literally when he said "blessed are the peacemakers," and their devotion to all forms of peace became one of their most distinctive characteristics. Not since the time of the early church had a Christian position been so unilaterally in favor of peace; and later groups, such as the Quakers, also came to adopt this position. For these "separatists" peace continued to be understood as both a spiritual condition and a way of life, in all of its practical applications leading to a harmonious and godly society. The Modern West The peace concept in the Western tradition from this point onward changed very little in meaning. In the modern period, however, a humanitarian ethos largely replaced the once Christian foundations for valuing peace, but the growing interdependency of nations also produced new concerns about the survival of human existence. By the eighteenth century, many intellectuals opposed the unreasonableness and barbarism of war, and as a result, construed peace as a rational pursuit by enlightened peoples. The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), in his Perpetual Peace (1795), argued that a world order built upon reason and prudence, which is basically enlightened self-interest, will produce a peaceful society, and bring with it all that is good. The nineteenth century witnessed few large-scale wars in Europe, leading some to believe that Kant's admonition had become a cultural reality. Attempts at balances of power up through the early twentieth century seemed to prove that the West had found the practical solution to the problem of war, and that temporal peace could be realized and perpetuated by sophisticated diplomacy and the careful and humane study of international politics. This rather hegemonic view of peace recalls the ideas of Aristotle and of later officials of the Roman Empire, both of whom believed that empire—that is, rule by a presumably superior civilization—was best positioned to ensure peace. Peace took on the additional nuance then of a planned arrangement for cooperation among nations, even as its moral and practical elements remained prominent. World War I, the rise of fascism, and the development of nuclear and atomic weapons, all in the twentieth century, left the West once again arguing for peace more from an ethical stance. Since diplomacy and international institutions devoted to peace (such as the United Nations) often fail to prevent wars, the survival of humanity may depend more on people recognizing the moral necessity for keeping peace. This outlook tends to reduce the peace idea to its most basic meaning as the guarantor of continued human existence, a good for which there is universal agreement and support across cultures. By the early twenty-first century, especially in Western societies, the concept of peace was most often linked to notions of justice and fairness. The modern ethical paradigm for peace espoused by most pacifists assumes that only when economic and political inequities are minimized or eliminated can we provide a basis for real and lasting peace and the consequent guarantee of prolonged human existence. Many contemporary intellectuals, such as Peter Brock, Peter Calvocoressi, Martin Ceadel, Michael Howard, and Charles Chatfield, have explored creatively the implications of this connection and have tried to offer specific and practical means for achieving true justice and, successively, peace. Muslim, Hindu, And Buddhist Traditions The Arabic word salam, a cognate of the Hebrew shalom, means "making peace." For Muslims, one comes to a purest state of peace by submitting to the will of Allah (isalm ), and anyone who has accomplished this is a muslim. Salam is even one of the ninety-nine names of Allah in the Islamic religion. In the Koran, anyone doing the will of God and giving all to exalt his sacred name, including the making of holy war (jihad ), will receive the divine blessing of peace and eventually live with God in that perfect state. Peace also can become an earthly state, in that good Muslims desire temporal peace, not war, realizing that only through an Islamic polity, serving Allah faithfully, can people prosper and live in harmony with one another. Thus, in Islam, ultimate peace, both spiritual and temporal, harmonizes within a submission to the divine will. In eastern intellectual traditions the spiritual and practical elements of peace have cohered much more intricately and consistently than they have in the west. The Chinese word for peace, heping, is comprised of two characters meaning harmony and level (or flat), which suggests equalizing and balancing. (This type of peace may be inherent in the famous Taoist cosmic principles of yin and yang, which when symmetrical restore order and oneness to the universe.) The Japanese cognate hewa means much the same. In classical Sanskrit shanti is the word closest in meaning to peace, usually denoting tranquility, calm, bliss, eternal rest, and happiness, but usually in connection to destruction or death. The term is often synonymous with sandi (association, combination) and the opposite of vigraha (separation, isolation, hostility). Peace here is contrary to the "absence of isolation" (vigrahabhava ) or the "absence of strife or war" (yuddhabhava ). From earliest Hindu thought it became the goal of the individual to escape from the necessity of being reborn, which was accomplished through deep meditation and the avoidance of bad karma, thus bringing ultimate peace. Another Indian concept, ahimsa, which is found first in the sacred Upanishads (c. eighth century b.c.e.), means nonviolence to animals and humans, and is based on the assumption that harm to living creatures produces bad karma by endangering or killing the soul of another. All life is one, and any animal could contain the soul of a relative who has been reincarnated, and so harming it is wrong. Mahatma Gandhi's (1869–1948) pacifism owed a great deal to this tradition of peace. By the time caste distinctions separated the ancient Indians, and led to warfare and strife, the famous meditation known as the Bhagavad Gita found in the epic classic Indian poem, the Mahabharat offered another means for achieving ultimate peace. Krishna tells the warrior Arjuna that in honoring the conditions of caste/race he brings honor to himself, and since souls return to new bodies after the old ones die, death does not matter. But one must reject all greed and anger, and therefore one can, even in the midst of battle, have peace within. Peace is ultimately an inner state that will beget positive ramifications as well for society as a whole. Buddhist ideas of peace derived from these early Hindu notions that asserted self-denial was the key to contentment and ultimate peace with the universe of which we are all a part spiritually. Also centered in the idea of ahimsa, Buddhists have believed that true peace and happiness come from the eradication of all desire, including the desire for permanence that creates conflict and division. Through meditative practices, selfish desire can be gradually eliminated until absolute peace, in this case, nirvana, is reached when our state of being ends. Part of this process entails the gradual shutting down of all sensory awareness and feeling, in what is known as sannavedayitanirodha. Since one does not stay in this state of contemplation permanently, this does not provide a lasting peace. Buddha believed that peace (shanti ), both internally and externally, can only be achieved truly when it becomes part of one's conception of the world and of those who live within it. Peace is conditional for Buddha as he taught that the insistence on any type of permanence led to inflexibility, and ultimately, to conflict. This recognition of "dependent arising" forms the path to enlightenment and brings freedom and peace within, but also peace without, since it allows for change and newness. Conclusion In summary, while the Eastern and Western intellectual traditions historically have construed peace differently, there are certain characteristics that appear to transcend culture and that are held in common, even if the emphasis varies. There persists a spiritual notion of peace that represents inner calm, wholeness, contentment, and selflessness. The internal condition tends to affect the external so that if individuals are not at peace with themselves, they are unlikely to engender temporal peace. On the contrary, they are more apt to participate in wars, since conflict among peoples usually comes from a dissatisfaction with the current state of being (or affairs) that needs redress, perhaps even violently. In most cultural traditions, peace is the natural state of the universe, and throughout history one of the most universal endeavors of humankind has been the quest to end strife and to restore a beneficial order and tranquility. In linking these various but complementary aspects of what it means to be at peace, peace scholar Gerald James Larson has concluded: To be at peace with oneself is to accept what or who one is and to have stopped warring with oneself. To be at peace in community is to make an agreement to end hostility, to live together in harmony, accepting the presence of one another. To be at peace in the cosmos is to accept, largely on faith, that the universe is benign, a more or less fitting habitat for the sorts of beings and forces that dwell or operate within it. (Rouner, p. 138) See also Buddhism ; Christianity ; International Order ; Islam ; War ; Yin and Yang . Bibliography Bainton, Roland H. Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. New York: Abingdon Press, 1960. Dyck, Harvey L., ed. The Pacifist Impulse in Historical Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Includes many good essays, including Roy C. Amore's "Peace and Nonviolence in Buddhism," Klaus K. Klostermaier's "Himsā and Ahimsā Traditions in Hinduism," and Charles Chatfield's "Thinking about Peace in History." Gallie, W. B. Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engels, and Tolstoy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Johnson, James Turner. The Quest for Peace: Three Moral Traditions in Western Cultural History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987. Kalupahana, David J. The Buddha and the Concept of Peace. Sri Lanka: Vishva Lekha Publishers, 1999. Kelsay, John, and James Turner Johnson, eds. Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions. New York: Greenwood, 1991. Lowe, Ben. Imagining Peace: A History of Early English Pacifist Ideas, 1340–1560. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Rouner, Leroy S., ed. Celebrating Peace. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. A number of excellent essays, including Sissela Bok's "Early Advocates of Lasting World Peace: Utopians or Realists?," Gerald James Larson's "The Rope of Violence and the Snake of Peace: Conflict and Harmony in Classical India," and Bhikhu Parekh's "Gandhi's Quest for a Nonviolent Political Philosophy." Zampaglione, Gerardo. The Idea of Peace in Antiquity. Translated by Richard Dunn. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973. Ben Lowe New Dictionary of the History of Ideas Lowe, Ben Peace Views 1,695,300 Updated May 17 2018 PEACE PEACE (Heb. שָׁלוֹם, shalom). In The Bible The verb shalem (so both the perfect, Gen. 15:16, and the participle, Gen. 33:18) in the qal means "to be whole, complete, or sound." "peace." The range of nuances is rather wide. That the iniquity of the Amorites has not yet become shalem (Gen. 15:16) means that it is not yet complete. That Jacob arrived shalem in the city of Shechem (Gen. 33:18) means that he arrived there safe. To be shalem with somebody means to be loyal to him (Gen. 34:21; i Kings 8:61; 11:4; etc.), and one's sholem (Ps. 7:5) is one's ally. Although recent translations show a great improvement in this regard, the noun shalom is still interpreted to mean "peace" more often than is warranted. It, of course, very frequently means health and/or well-being: Genesis 29:6 (twice); 37:14 (twice); 43:28. In this sense, shalom is frequently equivalent to a sentence, "It is well," and le may be added to express the English "with"; shalom is used alone in this way in ii Samuel 18:28, and with le in ii Samuel 18:29, 32. In Genesis 43:23 and Judges 19:20, "It is well with you" is equivalent to "Don't worry about that," referring in the second case to a roof under which to spend the night (the last clause in verse 18). That the antithesis in Isaiah 45:7 is not between "peace" and "evil," but between prosperity (shalom) and adversity (raʿ), has happily long been the dominant view (cf. shalom, ṭov, yeshuʿah, Isa. 52:7). It needs to be noted, however, that not "peace" but safety is the meaning of shalom in Leviticus 26:6 (cf. verses 25bb–26: within the land, they shall dwell secure – with never a savage beast or an invader – but only because the enemy will be kept out by dint of successful warfare); Jeremiah 12:12; Zechariah 8:10; and elsewhere. In the above-cited verse Isaiah 52:7, shalom stands in synonymous parallelism with ṭov in the sense of physical good; it likewise shares with ṭov the sense of moral good. Thus ṭov has the former meaning in Psalm 34:13 and the latter one in verse 15 – where it is paralleled by shalom. Translate: (13) Is there anyone among you who desires life, is eager for longevity and to experience well-being (ṭov)? (14) Then guard your tongue against evil and your lips against speaking deceit. (15) Shun evil and do good (ṭov); seek and pursue integrity/equity (shalom). For the interpretation of Psalm 37:37b, it makes no difference whether or not one reads in 37a shemor ṭov u-reʿeh yosher, "practice probity and cultivate equity" (in light of verse 3 where, conversely, shekhon ereẓ is to be emended to shemor ẓedek (ẓedeq), "practice righteousness," in light of the preceding "do good" and the following "cultivate honesty" as well as the shemor of this verse): 37b must in any case be translated "for there is a happy future for the man of integrity." Similarly, in Zechariah 8:16, in which the second ʾemet is obviously an erroneous repetition of the first, the sense is: "Speak the truth to each other, and judge equitably (lit. judge judgment of equity [shalom]) in your gates." And again in verse 19: "… The Fast of the Fourth Month, and the Fast of the Fifth Month, and the Fast of the Seventh Month, and the Fast of the Tenth Month shall become [occasions of] rejoicing and gladness and happy seasons for the House of Judah – only love truth and equity [shalom]." (Alluding to this verse, Esth. 9:30 characterizes Queen Esther's ordinance for the observation of the new holidays–the Purim of the provinces and the Purim of Shushan – as "an ordinance of equity and truth.") The parallelism alone would not suffice to tip the balance in favor of this meaning of shalom in Psalm 72:3, 7, for in Isaiah 60:17 the context precludes any interpretation of shalom/ẓedaqah other than "prosperity/success" (see *Righteousness). In Psalm 72:3, however, the context points once again to "equity." The prosperity of the country (in contrast to that of the king) is actually treated only in one corrupt verse near the end (verse 16). Finally, Y. Muffs has pointed out that, in light of the Akkadian idiom šalmeš atalluku (maḥar x), be-shalom uve-mishor halakh itti, Malachi 2:6, means "he served me with integrity and equity" (more idiomatically, "loyally and conscientiously" – H.L. Ginsberg). Even apart from the Akkadian evidence, the sense of Malachi 2:6 is clear from the foregoing and from the context: Levi, the ancestor of the priestly caste, saved the masses (rabbim), or laity by his conscientiousness in making torah rulings, from committing ritual offenses; his unworthy descendants, by being lax in this regard, often out of partiality, make the masses (rabbim), or laity, stumble by their rulings (torah). peace and the like Of course shalom does mean "peace" too. But first it must be pointed out that it often approaches this meaning without quite reaching it. yhwh's berit (covenant) of shalom with Phinehas (Num. 25:12) and with Zion (Isa. 54:10) were, for pity's sake, neither peace treaties terminating previous wars nor nonaggression pacts to refrain from starting new ones. They were solemn – actually unilateral – promises of divine grace. So too the *priestly blessing (Num. 6:24–26), after wishing yhwh's blessing, protection, friendliness, favor, and benignity, ends not, bathetically, with "and may He grant you peace" but, appropriately, "and may He extend grace (shalom) to you." In Jeremiah 16:5, yhwh's grace (shalom) is explicated as "kindness (ḥesed) and mercy (raḥamim)"; and in light of that passage it is probable that a vav has been lost at the end of Num. 6:24–26 before the initial vav of verse 27, so that shelomo, is to be read "His grace." In line with this is the phrase "intentions of shalom" for "gracious kind, intentions" (on the part of yhwh) in Jeremiah 29:11. A step closer to mere "peace" is "friendship" (or "alliance"), which sense shalom has in Judges 4:17: "there was shalom between King Jabin of Hazor and the family of Heber the Kenite," so that Jabin's general Sisera, fleeing from the Israelites, believed that he would find safety in the tent of Heber. So, too, one's shalom-men are one's friends or allies; Jeremiah 20:10; 38:22; Obadiah 7. Finally, shalom obviously means precisely "peace" in i Kings 2:5; Psalm 120:7; Ecclesiastes 3:8; Job 15:21, in which passage it stands in antithesis to war or marauding; but the cases in which this sense can be attributed to the word in good conscience are a small proportion of the total number of its occurrences. Thus it is not true that in Deuteronomy 20:10 the Torah required Israel to invite its adversary "to settle the dispute amicably" "before the commencement of hostilities." The Israelite army has already been mobilized, verse 2a, and has already marched up to an enemy city (not necessarily the first), verse 10a, and it now invites the city not "to settle the dispute amicably" but to surrender on ignominious terms in order to avoid a worse fate (verses 10–17). Shalom here means not peace but submission, and the verb hishlim definitely means not "to make peace" but "to submit," not only in Deuteronomy 20:12 but also in Joshua 10:1, 4; 11:19; ii Samuel 10:19; i Chronicles 19:19; and presumably also i Kings 22:45; Proverbs 16:7. *Isaiah's vision of an age where there would be no more war between nations, Isaiah 4:2–4 (Micah 4:1ff.), is unparalleled. It should not, however, be confused with pacifism. The reason for his opposition to alliances is explained in the Book of *Isaiah. It does not mean that he believed that self-defense was wrong. On the contrary, he predicts that in a penitent Judah those charged with defense (so long as defense, despite 2:2–4, remains necessary) will be endowed with charismatic valor (Isa. 28:6). [Harold Louis Ginsberg] In The Talmud With the possible exception of *justice, peace is the most exalted ideal of the rabbis of the Talmud. No words of praise are too exaggerated to emphasize the importance of this ideal. On the statement of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, "By three things the world is preserved, by truth, by judgment, and by peace" (Avot 1:18), the Talmud declares that they are in effect one, since "if judgment is executed, truth is vindicated, and peace prevails" (tj, Ta'an. 4:2, 68a). The rabbis interpret Hosea 4:17 to teach that "even if Israel is tied to idols, leave him, as long as peace prevails within it" (Gen. R. 38:6). The role of the scholars is to increase peace in the world (Ber. 64a), and it is to bring the rule of peace that Elijah will come (Eduy. 8:7). There is not a blessing or prayer in the liturgy, the Amidah, the Kaddish, the Priestly Blessing, and the Grace after Meals, which does not conclude with the prayer for peace (Lev. R. 9:9). "Shalom" is the standard greeting among Jews both on meeting and on saying farewell, so that the phrase for greeting and for answering the greeting is "to enquire of the peace of " and to "answer the peace of " (Ber. 2:1, 4b). Shalom is one of the names of God (Shab. 10b; Lev. R. 9:9). "The Holy One, blessed be He, found no vessel more worthy of retaining a blessing within it than peace" (Uk. 3:12). It is permitted to deviate from the strict line of truth in order to establish peace (Yev. 65b), and the Talmud declares with regard to Numbers 5:23, "if in order to establish peace between husband and wife the Name of God, which was written in holiness, may be blotted out, how much more so to bring about peace for the world as a whole" (tj, Sot. 1:4, 16d). It will be seen that the ideal of peace encompasses the whole gamut of human relationship, between man and his fellowman, and between nation and nation, bringing about the ideal of universal peace. *Aaron is regarded as the prototype of the ideal of peace (Avot 1:12; cf. Yoma 71b), and in the parallel passage in Avotde-Rabbi Nathan (12, p. 48) there is a loving and detailed account of the manner in which he used to devote himself to the bringing about of his ideal. In this Aaron stands in contrast to his brother Moses, who exemplifies the ideal of justice. Aaron's assent to the demand of the people to fashion the golden calf is contrasted with Moses' demands as the rival claims of the ideals of peace and justice when they clash, and the one can be achieved only at the price of the denial of the other, Moses maintaining, "Let justice pierce the mountain" (cf. "Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum"), whereas Aaron maintained the love and pursuit of peace at all cost. In a similar vein is the homily of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai on the injunction that no iron tool was to be used in the building of the altar, which had to be made of "whole stones" ("avanim shelemot" interpreted as "stones which bring peace" Deut. 27:5–6; cf. Ex. 20:22). "Is it not an a fortiori argument? If the stones of the altar which can neither see nor hear nor speak, but because they bring peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven, the Holy One, blessed be He said, 'thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them'; how much more so he who brings about peace between man and his fellow, between husband and wife, between city and city, between nation and nation, between government and government, and between family and family" (Mekh., Ba-Ḥodesh, ii). Abbaye's favorite maxim was "man should always strive to increase peace with his brother, his relations, with every other man, even with the heathen in the market place, in order that he be beloved on high and well-liked on earth, and acceptable to his fellowman" (Ber. 17a; ser 26), and there is a whole series of enactments and adjustments of the law made "in the interest of peace" (mipenei darkhei shalom). Nevertheless, Judaism is not uncompromisingly pacifist in its outlook. It sees universal peace as an ideal which will be achieved only in the messianic age, and Maimonides concludes his famous Code with the declaration that in that era there will be "neither famine nor war, neither jealousy nor strife." Judaism believes that war is sometimes morally justified and divides war into "the war of mitzvah," "the obligatory war" (milḥemet ḥovah; the war of the two are sometimes identified), and the optional war (cf. Maim. Yad, Melakhim 5–7; see *Mitzvah). Nevertheless, the whole weight of the ethics of the rabbis recoiled from the glorification of war. This attitude is strikingly expressed in a Mishnah (Shab. 6:4) which lays it down that a man may not go out wearing his arms on the Sabbath, and "if he did so he is obligated to bring a sin-offering." In answer to the opposite opinion that they can be regarded as adornments, the rabbis indignantly retorted, "they are nought but a reproach, as it is written, 'and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks, Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more'" (Isa. 2:4). [Louis Isaac Rabinowitz] In Post-Talmudic Jewish Thought The medieval Jewish thinkers discuss peace under the two headings of world peace and of the avoidance of internal strife and contention in the Jewish community. Jews in the Middle Ages had no voice in international affairs. World peace in the here and now was for them a purely academic question. Their discussions of it, consequently, are in a messianic context. Saadiah (Emunot ve-Deot 7:10) points to the continuing wars among nations, including wars of religion, to demonstrate that the prophetic vision of peace on earth can only apply to the messianic age. Maimonides (Yad, Melakhim 12:5) similarly considers the establishment of peace for all mankind to be an accomplishment of the Messiah. David Kimḥi (to Isa. 2:4) states that the nations will bring their disputes to the Messiah for arbitration. He will decide so wisely and justly that war between nations will be purposeless. It has frequently been pointed out that in medieval illustrated Haggadot the wicked son is depicted as a warrior, the wise son as a peace-loving sage. Joseph Albo (Sefer ha-Ikkarim 4:51) defines peace as the harmony of opposites. There is no virtue in one extreme predominating over another, but only in the harmony between the irascible and the patient, the niggardly and the extravagant, and so on. Peace of mind means the attainment of harmony among the different parts of the soul. Isaac Arama (Akedat Yiẓḥak, 74) holds that the conventional view of peace as a mere negation of strife fails to do justice to the richness of the concept. Peace is a positive thing, the essential means by which men of differing temperaments and opinions can work together for the common good. Pearls of individual virtue would be dim in isolation if not for the string of peace that binds them together and so increases their luster. That is why peace is a name of God, for it is He who gives unity to the whole of creation. [Louis Jacobs] Medieval Jewish thinkers suggested three fundamental concepts regarding the way to make an end to war and to bring about a state of peace. According to the first, this can be done by reforming man qua man – that is, by changing the consciousness of the individual. Putting an end to war involves subduing those internal impulses and motives that impel people to violence. Peace will come about as a consequence of the perfection – either intellectual or psychological – of humankind. Maimonides, for instance, viewed the prophetic vision of peace as a natural and necessary outgrowth of the dominion of the intellect over man's destructive impulses. For him, violence and war, the inflicting of harm by people on one another, have their source in irrationality and ignorance. However, the apprehension of truth – "knowledge of God" – displaces man's awareness from his attachment to illusory goods and interests, and completely eliminates the irrational factors that give rise to mutual conflict between individuals, groups, and nations (Guide 3:11: Laws of Kings, 12:1). Similarly, Abraham bar Hiyya describes the peace foretold by the prophets as the consequence of a radical change in human consciousness. However, it is in the realm of interpersonal relations that this transformation is to take place. Man's destructive impulses are to be overcome not by intellect, but by the sense of intimacy and mutual identification that will grow among people once they have all chosen to adopt the same path. The projected utopian peace will be expressed and embodied in the universal effectiveness of the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself " (Hegyon ha-Nefesh, ed. G. Wigoder, p. 150). According to a second concept, peace will come about by reconstructing the international framework – that is, by creating a new world order, either through law and justice or through domination and force. The image of world peace described by several medieval commentators and thinkers took the form of a judicial arrangement between the rival nations, a kind of an international court that would mediate their quarrels and conflicts. This vision speaks not of a human society that has risen above all striving; it speaks, rather, of a procedure for conflict resolution presided over by a supreme, utopian judge whose authority and righteousness are accepted by all. For instance, for David *Kimḥi (Commentary on Micah, 4, 3) and Isaac *Arama (Akedat Yiẓḥak, gate 46, 133b), the prophetic tiding "and he shall judge between the nations" (Isa. 2:4; Micah 4:3), does not refer to the kingship of God but to the sages of Jerusalem or to the messiah. They therefore granted the judicial institution universal authority. Other thinkers, however, interpreted the envisioned international structure as a kind of Pax Judaica, a single, central government in Zion to which all people would be subject. These portrayals, of a destined universal domination of the people of Israel or the king-messiah rest upon biblical or midrashic sources, but they also reflect contemporary historical reality: living out the present in submission, subject to the gentile powers, thinkers like *Saadiah Gaon (Doctrines and Beliefs, 8, 8) and *Albo anticipate a complete reverse. Finally, according to a third concept, peace will be achieved by an internal reformation of society – that is, by a change in the socio-political order. Peace will come about as a result of either the annulment or the improvement of existing political structures. Isaac *Abrabanel foresaw a universal theocracy, the kingship of God on earth. Ultimate peace would involve the disappearance of national and political boundaries and the abrogation of political structures through the unification of all humanity in the light of monotheistic faith – that is to say, through the religious perfection of humanity (Commentary to Isa. 2;4, Commentary to Micah 4). Isaac Arama, however, discusses peace and war in relation to the law of the state, the present operative political and judicial order. Unlike the conceptions described above, in which peace was portrayed primarily from a utopian point of view, Arama looks at this issue in light of actual, contemporary historical reality as well. "For if the social order and law (nimmus) are defective and distant from the natural truth […] quarrel and strife cannot but break out amongst them" (Akedat Yiẓḥak, 46). It is thus the task of the lawgiver to ordain a social order that will educe such motives, both on the part of the ruler and on the part of his subjects. [Aviezer Ravitzky (2nd ed.)] In Modern Jewish Thought Modern Jewish thought, without any denominational differences, except possibly on the question of religious toleration, is unanimous on the great value of peace. Morris Joseph (Judaism as Creed and Life (1903), 456–7) is typical of the whole modern trend when he writes that only the peace-loving Jew is a true follower of the prophets, that the greatest sacrifices should be made to avoid war, that a Jew cannot consistently belong to a war party, and that the Jew's religion, history, and mission all pledge him to a policy of peace, as a citizen as well as an individual. A.I. Kook, commenting on the ruling that the office of the priest "anointed for war" (Deut. 20:2–4) is not a hereditary one, remarks that the idea of a hereditary position is to express permanence in human affairs. However, peace is the only state deserving of permanence. Consequently, there can be no question of a hereditary appointment for a functionary connected with warfare, but only for one who operates in times of peace (Zevin: Le-Or ha-Halakhah (1946), 27–28). The Reform Union Prayer Book contains this prayer: "Grant us peace, Thy most precious gift, O Thou eternal source of peace, and enable Israel to be its messenger unto the peoples of the earth. Bless our country that it may ever be a stronghold of peace, and its advocate in the council of nations." [Louis Jacobs] Bibliography: in the bible: Koehler-Baumgartner, 973–4; Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (1969), 203–4. in talmud: G.F. Moore, Judaism, 2 (1927), 195–7; J.S. Kornfeld, Judaism and International Peace (193ff.); A. Cronbach, in: ccary, 46 (1936), 198–221; M. Wald, Jewish Teaching on Peace (1944); L.I. Rabinowitz, in: jqr, 58 (1967/68), 148 no. 20. add. bibliography: A. Ravitzky, "Peace," in: A.A. Cohen and P. Mendes-Flohr (eds.), Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought (1987), 685–702. Columbidae     Article     Talk     Read     View source     View history Tools This is a good article. Click here for more information. Page semi-protected From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Dove) "Pigeon" and "Dove" redirect here. For other uses, see Pigeon (disambiguation) and Dove (disambiguation). Columbidae Temporal range: Early Miocene–recent[1] PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N Pink-necked green pigeon Scientific classification Edit this classification Domain:  Eukaryota Kingdom:  Animalia Phylum:  Chordata Class:  Aves Clade:  Columbimorphae Order:  Columbiformes Latham, 1790 Family:  Columbidae Leach, 1819 Type genus Columba Linnaeus, 1758 Subfamilies See text Geographic range of the family Columbidae Columbidae (/kəˈlʌmbɪdiː/) is a bird family consisting of doves and pigeons. It is the only family in the order Columbiformes. These are stout-bodied birds with short necks and short slender bills that in some species feature fleshy ceres. They primarily feed on seeds, fruits, and plants. The family occurs worldwide, but the greatest variety is in the Indomalayan and Australasian realms. The family contains 344 species divided into 50 genera. Thirteen of the species are extinct.[2] In English, the smaller species tend to be called "doves" and the larger ones "pigeons".[3] However, the distinction is not consistent,[3] and does not exist in most other languages. Historically, the common names for these birds involve a great deal of variation among the terms. The bird most commonly referred to as just "pigeon" is the domestic pigeon, which is common in many cities as the feral pigeon. Doves and pigeons build relatively flimsy nests, often using sticks and other debris, which may be placed on branches of trees, on ledges, or on the ground, depending on species. They lay one or (usually) two white eggs at a time, and both parents care for the young, which leave the nest after 25–32 days. Unfledged baby doves and pigeons are called squabs and are generally able to fly by 5 weeks of age. These fledglings, with their immature squeaking voices, are called squeakers once they are weaned.[4] Unlike most birds, both sexes of doves and pigeons produce "crop milk" to feed to their young, secreted by a sloughing of fluid-filled cells from the lining of the crop. Etymology Pigeon is a French word that derives from the Latin pīpiō, for a "peeping" chick,[5] while dove is an ultimately Germanic word that refers to the bird's diving flight.[6] The English dialectal word culver appears to derive from Latin columba.[5] A group of doves is called a "dule", taken from the French word deuil ('mourning').[7] Origin and evolution Columbiformes is one of the most diverse non-passerine clades of neoavians, and its origins are in the Cretaceous[8] and the result of a rapid diversification at the end of the K-Pg boundary.[9] Whole genome analyses have found the columbiformes form a sister clade of a group conformed by the sandgrouses (Pterocliformes) and mesites (Mesitornithiformes).[10][11] Taxonomy and systematics See also: List of Columbidae genera and List of Columbidae species The name 'Columbidae' for the family was introduced by the English zoologist William Elford Leach in a guide to the contents of the British Museum published in 1819.[12][13] Columbidae is the only living family in the order Columbiformes. The sandgrouse (Pteroclidae) were formerly placed here, but were moved to a separate order, Pterocliformes, based on anatomical differences (such as the inability to drink by "sucking" or "pumping").[14] The Columbidae are usually divided into five subfamilies, probably inaccurately.[15] For example, the American ground and quail doves (Geotrygon), which are usually placed in the Columbinae, seem to be two distinct subfamilies.[a] The order presented here follows Baptista et al. (1997),[16] with some updates.[17][18][19] The arrangement of genera and naming of subfamilies is in some cases provisional because analyses of different DNA sequences yield results that differ, often radically, in the placement of certain (mainly Indo-Australian) genera.[citation needed] This ambiguity, probably caused by long branch attraction, seems to confirm the first pigeons evolved in the Australasian region, and that the "Treronidae" and allied forms (crowned and pheasant pigeons, for example) represent the earliest radiation of the group.[citation needed] The family Columbidae previously also contained the family Raphidae, consisting of the extinct Rodrigues solitaire and the dodo.[19][20][21] These species are in all likelihood part of the Indo-Australian radiation that produced the three small subfamilies mentioned above,[22] with the fruit doves and pigeons (including the Nicobar pigeon). Therefore, they are here included as a subfamily Raphinae, pending better material evidence of their exact relationships.[23] Exacerbating these issues, columbids are not well represented in the fossil record.[24] No truly primitive forms have been found to date.[citation needed] The genus Gerandia has been described from Early Miocene deposits in France, but while it was long believed to be a pigeon,[25] it is now considered a sandgrouse.[26] Fragmentary remains of a probably "ptilinopine" Early Miocene pigeon were found in the Bannockburn Formation of New Zealand and described as Rupephaps;[26] "Columbina" prattae from roughly contemporary deposits of Florida is nowadays tentatively separated in Arenicolumba, but its distinction from Columbina/Scardafella and related genera needs to be more firmly established (e.g. by cladistic analysis).[27] Apart from that, all other fossils belong to extant genera.[28] Baby pigeon Rock dove (Columba livia) in flight Rock dove courtship Duration: 1 minute and 24 seconds.1:24 Rock doves in flight A pigeon on roof top List of genera Fossil species of uncertain placement:     Genus †Arenicolumba Steadman, 2008     Genus †Rupephaps Worthy, Hand, Worthy, Tennyson, & Scofield, 2009 (St. Bathans pigeon, Miocene of New Zealand) Subfamily Columbinae (typical pigeons and doves)     Tribe Zenaidini [Leptotilinae] (quail-doves and allies)         Genus Geotrygon (10 species)         Genus Starnoenas (blue-headed quail-dove)         Genus Leptotrygon (olive-backed quail-dove)         Genus Leptotila (11 species)         Genus Zenaida (7 species)         Genus Zentrygon (8 species)     Tribe Columbini         Genus Patagioenas (American pigeons, 17 species)         Genus †Ectopistes (passenger pigeon; extinct 1914)         Genus Reinwardtoena (3 species)         Genus Turacoena (3 species)         Genus Macropygia (typical cuckoo-doves, 15 species)         Genus Streptopelia (turtle doves and collared doves, 13 species)         Genus †Dysmoropelia Olson, 1975 (Saint Helena dove) (prehistoric)         Genus Columba (Old World pigeons, 35 species of which 2 recently extinct)         Genus Spilopelia (2 species)         Genus Nesoenas (3 species) Subfamily Claravinae (American ground doves)     Genus Claravis (blue ground dove)     Genus Paraclaravis (2 species)     Genus Uropelia (long-tailed ground dove)     Genus Metriopelia (4 species)     Genus Columbina (9 species) Raphinae     Tribe Phabini (bronzewings and relatives)         Genus Henicophaps (2 species)         Genus Gallicolumba (bleeding-hearts and allies, 7 species)         Genus Pampusana (13 species of which 3 recently extinct)         Genus Ocyphaps (crested pigeon)         Genus Petrophassa (rock pigeons, 2 species)         Genus Leucosarcia (wonga pigeon)         Genus Geopelia (5 species)         Genus Phaps (Australian bronzewings, 3 species)         Genus Geophaps (3 species)     Tribe Raphini [Didunculinae; Otidiphabinae; Gourinae]         Genus ?†Natunaornis (Viti Levu giant pigeon) (prehistoric)         Genus Trugon (thick-billed ground pigeon)         Genus †Microgoura (Choiseul crested pigeon, extinct early 20th century)         Genus Otidiphaps (pheasant pigeon)         Genus Goura (crowned pigeons, 4 species)         Genus Didunculus (tooth-billed pigeon)         Genus  ?†Deliaphaps De Pietri, Scofield, Tennyson, Hand, & Worthy, 2017 (Zealandian dove, Miocene of New Zealand)         Genus Caloenas (Nicobar pigeon)         Genus †Raphus (dodo, extinct late 17th century)         Genus †Pezophaps (Rodrigues solitaire, extinct c. 1730)         Genus †Bountyphaps Worthy & Wragg, 2008 (Henderson Island pigeon) (prehistoric)     Tribe Turturini         Genus Phapitreron (brown doves, 3 species)         Genus Oena (Namaqua dove, tentatively placed here)         Genus Turtur (wood doves, 5 species; tentatively placed here)         Genus Chalcophaps (emerald doves, 3 species)     Tribe Treronini         Genus Treron (green pigeons, 30 species)     Tribe Ptilinopini (fruit doves and imperial pigeons)         Genus Ducula (imperial pigeons, 42 species)         Genus Ptilinopus [Drepanoptila; Alectroenas] (fruit doves, some 50 living species, 1–2 recently extinct)         Genus Hemiphaga (2 species)         Genus Lopholaimus (topknot pigeon)         Genus Cryptophaps (sombre pigeon)         Genus Gymnophaps (mountain pigeons, 4 species)         Genus  ?†Tongoenas Steadman & Takano, 2020 (Tongan giant pigeon) (prehistoric) Description The common ground dove (Columbina passerina) is among the smallest species in the family. Size and appearance A Woodpigeon on a telephone line. The Common wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) is common throughout Europe. Pigeons and doves exhibit considerable variation in size, ranging in length from 15 to 75 centimetres (5.9 to 29.5 in), and in weight from 30 g (0.066 lb) to above 2,000 g (4.4 lb).[29] The largest species is the crowned pigeon of New Guinea,[30] which is nearly turkey-sized, at a weight of 2–4 kg (4.4–8.8 lb).[31] The smallest is the common ground dove (Columbina passerina) of the genus Columbina, which is the same size as a house sparrow, weighing as little as 22 g (0.049 lb).[16] The dwarf fruit dove, which may measure as little as 13 cm (5.1 in), has a marginally smaller total length than any other species from this family.[16] One of the largest arboreal species, the Marquesan imperial pigeon, currently battles extinction.[32] Anatomy and physiology Overall, the anatomy of Columbidae is characterized by short legs, short bills with a fleshy cere, and small heads on large, compact bodies.[33] Like some other birds, the Columbidae have no gall bladders.[34] Some medieval naturalists concluded they have no bile (gall), which in the medieval theory of the four humours explained the allegedly sweet disposition of doves.[35] In fact, however, they do have bile (as Aristotle had earlier realized), which is secreted directly into the gut.[36] A landing collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) displays the contour and flight feathers of its wings. The wings are large, and have eleven primary feathers;[37] pigeons have strong wing muscles (wing muscles comprise 31–44% of their body weight[38]) and are among the strongest fliers of all birds.[37] In a series of experiments in 1975 by Dr. Mark B. Friedman, using doves, their characteristic head bobbing was shown to be due to their natural desire to keep their vision constant.[39] It was shown yet again in a 1978 experiment by Dr. Barrie J. Frost, in which pigeons were placed on treadmills; it was observed that they did not bob their heads, as their surroundings were constant.[40] Feathers Pigeon feather types, excluding down. Columbidae have unique body feathers, with the shaft being generally broad, strong, and flattened, tapering to a fine point, abruptly.[37] In general, the aftershaft is absent; however, small ones on some tail and wing feathers may be present.[41] Body feathers have very dense, fluffy bases, are attached loosely into the skin, and drop out easily.[42] Possibly serving as a predator avoidance mechanism,[43] large numbers of feathers fall out in the attacker's mouth if the bird is snatched, facilitating the bird's escape. The plumage of the family is variable.[44] Granivorous species tend to have dull plumage, with a few exceptions, whereas the frugivorous species have brightly coloured plumage.[16] The Ptilinopus (fruit doves) are some of the brightest coloured pigeons, with the three endemic species of Fiji and the Indian Ocean Alectroenas being the brightest. Pigeons and doves may be sexually monochromatic or dichromatic.[45] In addition to bright colours, pigeons may sport crests or other ornamentation.[46] Flight Animation of flying pigeons Columbidae are excellent fliers due to the lift provided by their large wings, which results in low wing loading;[47] They are highly maneuverable in flight[48] and have a low aspect ratio due to the width of their wings, allowing for quick flight launches and ability to escape from predators, but at a high energy cost.[49] Distribution and habitat See also: List of Columbiformes by population The zebra dove (Geopelia striata) has been widely introduced around the world. Pigeons and doves are distributed everywhere on Earth, except for the driest areas of the Sahara Desert, Antarctica and its surrounding islands, and the high Arctic.[29] They have colonised most of the world's oceanic islands, reaching eastern Polynesia and the Chatham Islands in the Pacific, Mauritius, the Seychelles and Réunion in the Indian Ocean, and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. The family has adapted to most of the habitats available on the planet. These species may be arboreal, terrestrial, or semi-terrestrial. Various species also inhabit savanna, grassland, desert, temperate woodland and forest, mangrove forest, and even the barren sands and gravels of atolls.[50] Some species have large natural ranges. The eared dove ranges across the entirety of South America from Colombia to Tierra del Fuego,[51] the Eurasian collared dove has a massive (if discontinuous) distribution from Britain across Europe, the Middle East, India, Pakistan and China,[52] and the laughing dove across most of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as India, Pakistan, and the Middle East.[53] Other species have tiny, restricted distributions; this is most common in island endemics. The whistling dove is endemic to the tiny Kadavu Island in Fiji,[54] the Caroline ground dove is restricted to two islands, Truk and Pohnpei in the Caroline Islands,[55] and the Grenada dove is restricted to Grenada in the Caribbean.[56] Some continental species also have tiny distributions; for example, the black-banded fruit dove is restricted to a small area of the Arnhem Land of Australia,[57] the Somali pigeon is restricted to a tiny area of northern Somalia,[58] and Moreno's ground dove is restricted to the area around Salta and Tucuman in northern Argentina.[16] The largest range of any species is that of the rock dove.[59] This species had a large natural distribution from Britain and Ireland to northern Africa, across Europe, Arabia, Central Asia, India, the Himalayas and up into China and Mongolia.[59] The range of the species increased dramatically upon domestication, as the species went feral in cities around the world.[59] The species is currently resident across most of North America, and has established itself in cities and urban areas in South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.[59] The species is not the only pigeon to have increased its range due to the actions of man; several other species have become established outside of their natural range after escaping captivity, and other species have increased their natural ranges due to habitat changes caused by human activity.[16] A 2020 study found that the East Coast of the U.S. includes two pigeon genetic megacities, in New York and Boston, and the birds do not mix together.[60] Behaviour Feeding White-bellied green pigeon (Treron sieboldii) feeding on fruit Seeds and fruit form the major component of the diets of pigeons and doves.[29][61] In fact, the family can be divided into the seed-eating or granivorous species (subfamily Columbinae) and the fruit-and-mast-eating or frugivorous species (the other four subfamilies).[62] The granivorous species typically feed on seed found on the ground, whereas the frugivorous species tend to feed in trees.[62] There are morphological adaptations that can be used to distinguish between the two groups: granivores tend to have thick walls in their gizzards, intestines, and esophagi whereas the frugivores tend to have thin walls.[29] In addition, fruit-eating species have short intestines whereas those that eat seeds have longer ones.[63] Frugivores are capable of clinging to branches and even hang upside down to reach fruit.[16][62] In addition to fruit and seeds, a number of other food items are taken by many species. Some, particularly the ground doves and quail-doves, eat a large number of prey items such as insects and worms.[62] One species, the atoll fruit dove, is specialised in taking insect and reptile prey.[62] Snails, moths, and other insects are taken by white-crowned pigeons, orange fruit doves, and ruddy ground doves.[16] Urban feral pigeons, descendants of domestic rock doves (Columbia Livia), reside in urban environments, disturbing their natural feeding habits. They depend on human activities and interactions to obtain food, causing them to forage for spilled food or food provided by humans.[64] Status and conservation The Socorro dove (Zenaida graysoni) is extinct in the wild While many species of pigeons and doves have benefited from human activities and have increased their ranges, many other species have declined in numbers and some have become threatened or even succumbed to extinction.[65] Among the ten species to have become extinct since 1600 (the conventional date for estimating modern extinctions) are two of the most famous extinct species, the dodo and the passenger pigeon.[65] The passenger pigeon was exceptional for a number of reasons. In modern times, it is the only pigeon species that was not an island species to have become extinct[65] even though it was once the most numerous species of bird on Earth.[citation needed] Its former numbers are difficult to estimate, but one ornithologist, Alexander Wilson, estimated one flock he observed contained over two billion birds.[66] The decline of the species was abrupt; in 1871, a breeding colony was estimated to contain over a hundred million birds, yet the last individual in the species was dead by 1914.[67] Although habitat loss was a contributing factor, the species is thought to have been massively over-hunted, being used as food for slaves and, later, the poor, in the United States throughout the 19th century.[citation needed] The dodo, and its extinction, was more typical of the extinctions of pigeons in the past. Like many species that colonise remote islands with few predators, it lost much of its predator avoidance behaviour, along with its ability to fly.[68] The arrival of people, along with a suite of other introduced species such as rats, pigs, and cats, quickly spelled the end for this species and all the other island forms that have become extinct.[68] Around 59 species of pigeons and doves are threatened with extinction today, about 19% of all species.[69] Most of these are tropical and live on islands. All of the species are threatened by introduced predators, habitat loss, hunting, or a combination of these factors.[68] In some cases, they may be extinct in the wild, as is the Socorro dove of Socorro Island, Mexico, last seen in the wild in 1972, driven to extinction by habitat loss and introduced feral cats.[70] In some areas, a lack of knowledge means the true status of a species is unknown; the Negros fruit dove has not been seen since 1953,[71] and may or may not be extinct, and the Polynesian ground dove is classified as critically endangered, as whether it survives or not on remote islands in the far west of the Pacific Ocean is unknown.[72] Various conservation techniques are employed to prevent these extinctions, including laws and regulations to control hunting pressure, the establishment of protected areas to prevent further habitat loss, the establishment of captive populations for reintroduction back into the wild (ex situ conservation), and the translocation of individuals to suitable habitats to create additional populations.[68][73] Military Further information: War pigeon Dickin Medal for the pigeon Royal Blue Cher Ami was awarded the Croix de Guerre. The pigeon was used in both World War I and World War II, notably by the Australian, French, German, American, and UK forces. They were also awarded for their service with various laurels throughout. On 2 December 1943, three pigeons – Winkie, Tyke, and White Vision – , serving with Britain's Royal Air Force, were awarded the first Dickin medal for rescuing an air force crew during World War II.[74] Thirty-two pigeons have been decorated with the Dickin Medal, citing their "brave service"[75] in war contributions, including Commando, G.I. Joe,[76] Paddy, Royal Blue, and William of Orange.[citation needed] Cher Ami, a homing pigeon in World War I, was awarded the Croix de Guerre Medal, by France, with a palm Oak Leaf Cluster for his service in Verdun.[77] Despite having almost lost a leg and being shot in the chest, he managed to travel around 25 miles to deliver the message that saved 194 men of the Lost Battalion of the 77th Infantry Division in the Battle of the Argonne, in October 1918.[77][74] When Cher Ami died, he was mounted and is part of the permanent exhibit at the National Museum of American History of the Smithsonian Institution.[78] A grand ceremony was held in Buckingham Palace to commemorate a platoon of pigeons that braved the battlefields of Normandy to deliver vital plans to Allied forces on the fringes of Germany.[79] Three of the actual birds that received the medals are on show in the London Military Museum[clarification needed] so that well-wishers can pay their respects.[79] In Brussels, there is a monument commemorating pigeons that served in World War I, the Monument au Pigeon-Soldat [fr]. Domestication Emperor Honorius is a historically prominent individual who kept pigeons as pets. The rock dove has been domesticated for hundreds of years.[80] It has been bred into several varieties kept by hobbyists, of which the best known is the homing pigeon or racing homer.[80] Other popular breeds are tumbling pigeons such as the Birmingham roller, and fancy varieties that are bred for certain physical characteristics such as large feathers on the feet or fan-shaped tails. Domesticated rock pigeons are also bred as carrier pigeons,[46] used for thousands of years to carry brief written messages,[81] and release doves used in ceremonies.[82] White doves are also used for entertainment and amusement, as they are capable of solving puzzles and performing intricate tricks.[83] A variant called the zurito, bred for its speed, may be used in live pigeon shooting.[84][85] In religion Early fifth-century BC statue of Aphrodite from Cyprus, showing her wearing a cylinder crown and holding a dove God the Holy Spirit descending from heaven like a dove at the Baptism of Jesus depicted by Almeida Júnior See also: Doves as symbols In ancient Mesopotamia, doves were prominent animal symbols of Inanna-Ishtar, the goddess of love, sexuality, and war.[86][87] Doves are shown on cultic objects associated with Inanna as early as the beginning of the third millennium BC.[86] Lead dove figurines were discovered in the temple of Ishtar at Aššur, dating to the thirteenth century BC,[86] and a painted fresco from Mari, Syria, shows a giant dove emerging from a palm tree in the temple of Ishtar,[87] indicating that the goddess herself was sometimes believed to take the form of a dove.[87] In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim releases a dove and a raven to find land; the dove merely circles and returns.[88] Only then does Utnapishtim send forth the raven, which does not return, and Utnapishtim concludes the raven has found land.[88] In the ancient Levant, doves were used as symbols for the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah.[86][87][89] The ancient Greek word for "dove" was peristerá,[86][87] which may be derived from the Semitic phrase peraḥ Ištar, meaning "bird of Ishtar".[86] In classical antiquity, doves were sacred to the Greek goddess Aphrodite,[90][91][86][87] who absorbed this association with doves from Inanna-Ishtar.[87] Aphrodite frequently appears with doves in ancient Greek pottery.[90] The temple of Aphrodite Pandemos on the southwest slope of the Athenian Acropolis was decorated with relief sculptures of doves with knotted fillets in their beaks[90] and votive offerings of small, white, marble doves were discovered in the temple of Aphrodite at Daphni.[90] During Aphrodite's main festival, the Aphrodisia, her altars would be purified with the blood of a sacrificed dove.[92] Aphrodite's associations with doves influenced the Roman goddesses Venus and Fortuna, causing them to become associated with doves as well.[89] Dove with an olive branch, Catacombs of Domitilla, Rome In the Hebrew Bible, doves or young pigeons are acceptable burnt offerings for those who cannot afford a more expensive animal.[93] In Genesis, Noah sends a dove out of the ark, but it came back to him because the floodwaters had not receded. Seven days later, he sent it again and it came back with an olive branch in her mouth, indicating the waters had receded enough for an olive tree to grow. "Dove" is also a term of endearment in the Song of Songs and elsewhere. In Hebrew, Jonah (יוֹנָה) means dove.[94] The "sign of Jonas" in [1] is related to the "sign of the dove".[95] Jesus's parents sacrificed doves on his behalf after his circumcision (Luke 2:24).[95] Later, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism like a dove (Matthew), and subsequently the "peace dove" became a common Christian symbol of the Holy Spirit.[95] In Islam, doves and the pigeon family in general are respected and favoured because they are believed to have assisted the final prophet of Islam, Muhammad, in distracting his enemies outside the cave of Thaw'r, in the great Hijra.[96] A pair of pigeons had built a nest and laid eggs at once, and a spider had woven cobwebs, which in the darkness of the night made the fugitives believe that Muhammad could not be in that cave.[96] As food See also: Squab (food) Fried pigeon with nasi timbel (banana leaf wrapped rice), tempeh, tofu, and vegetables, Sundanese cuisine, Indonesia Several species of pigeons and doves are used as food; however, all types are edible.[97] Domesticated or hunted pigeons have been used as the source of food since the times of the Ancient Middle East, Ancient Rome, and Medieval Europe.[75] It is familiar meat within Jewish, Arab, and French cuisines. According to the Tanakh, doves are kosher, and they are the only birds that may be used for a korban. Other kosher birds may be eaten, but not brought as a korban. Pigeon is also used in Asian cuisines, such as Chinese, Assamese, and Indonesian cuisines. In Europe, the wood pigeon is commonly shot as a game bird,[98] while rock pigeons were originally domesticated as a food species, and many breeds were developed for their meat-bearing qualities.[50] The extinction of the passenger pigeon in North America was at least partly due to shooting for use as food.[99] Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management contains recipes for roast pigeon and pigeon pie, a popular, inexpensive food in Victorian industrial Britain.[100] List of monuments depicting pigeons There are many public monuments on planet Earth devoted to and depicting pigeons. Name  Location  Year dedicated  Information  Image Passenger Pigeon Monument  Wyalusing State Park, Wisconsin, USA  1948  The plaque on this conservationist statue's inscription reads: "DEDICATED TO THE LAST PASSENGER PIGEON Shot at Babcock, Sept. 1899. This Species Became Extinct Through the Avarice and Thoughtlessness of Man."[101] It honors the passenger pigeon, which had once perhaps been the most numerous bird on the planet before going extinct in 1914, largely due to unregulated hunting and habitat destruction committed by European settlers of North America.[102]  Monument voor de Oorlogsduif [nl]  Brussels, Belgium  1931  This metal statue, designed by Georges Hano and sculpted by Victor Voets, honors the war pigeons who died in World War I.[103] Then-Brussels Mayor Adolphe Max[104] at the 1931 dedication ceremony of this statute said that carrier pigeons perhaps made the greatest and most painful contribution to the victory and liberation of Belgium during the First World War. The metal statue depicts a pigeon landing on a topless woman's outstretched arm.  Monument to Carrier Pigeons  Lille, France  1936  This stone monument depicts a woman flocked by birds, erected in honor of the approximately tens of thousands of birds who served as carrier pigeons or otherwise served the Triple Entente during World War I. The statue is in front of the Lille Zoo. It was erected by the édération Nationale des Sociétés Colombophiles (National Federation of Pigeon Societies).[105]  Hato Popo monument  Tokyo, Japan  1962  This is one of multiple statues dedicated to the beloved Japanese children's song, "Hato Popo". The words of the song were written by Kume Higashi while watching children play with pigeons at the Buddhist Sensō-ji temple in Tokyo, near where this statue now is. A plaque on the monument includes the musical notation of the song. Atop the monument, five bronze pigeons are perched.[106]  Monument au Pigeon-Soldat [fr]  Charleroi, Belgium  1951  A depiction of a bird with outstretched wings honors the pigeon soldiers of World War I.[107] The sculptor was Alphonse Darville [fr].  Passenger Pigeon Memorial Hut  Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Ohio, USA  A memorial specifically to Martha, the last known passenger pigeon who died at the Cincinnati Zoo in 1914, is housed in a Japanese pagoda-style building on zoo's grounds. Inside the building is artwork depicting the passenger pigeon. A bronze Martha is outside the memorial.[108]  See also     Birds portal     Doves as symbols     Gamasoidosis     Homing pigeon     List of Columbidae species     Marquesan imperial pigeon     Pigeon control     War pigeon     Kapotasana and Rajakapotasana, yoga poses named for columbidae Notes     Conventional treatment saw two large subfamilies: one for the fruit doves, imperial pigeons, and fruit pigeons, and another for nearly all of the remaining species. Additionally, three monotypic subfamilies were noted, one each for the genera Goura, Otidiphaps, and Didunculus. The old subfamily Columbinae consisted of five distinct lineages, whereas the other four groups are more or less accurate representations of the evolutionary relationships. References Farner, Donald (2012). Avian Biology. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-323-15799-5. Gill, Frank; Donsker, David; Rasmussen, Pamela, eds. (2020). "Pigeons". IOC World Bird List Version 10.1. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 27 February 2020. McDonald, Hannah (17 August 2008). "What's the Difference Between Pigeons and Doves?". Big Questions. Mental Floss. Crome, Francis H.J. (1991). Forshaw, Joseph (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Animals: Birds. London: Merehurst Press. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-1-85391-186-6. Harper, Douglas. "pigeon". Online Etymology Dictionary. Harper, Douglas. "dove". Online Etymology Dictionary. Lipton, James (1991). An Exaltation of Larks. Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-30044-0. Pereira, S.L. et al. (2007) Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences support a Cretaceous origin of Columbiformes and a dispersal-driven radiation in the Paleocene. Syst Biol. 56:656–72 Soares, A.E.R. et al. (2016) Complete mitochondrial genomes of living and extinct pigeons revise the timing of the columbiform radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 16(230). Jarvis, E.D.; et al. (2014). "Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds". Science. 346 (6215): 1320–1331. Bibcode:2014Sci...346.1320J. doi:10.1126/science.1253451. PMC 4405904. PMID 25504713. Prum, R.O.; et al. (2015). "A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing". Nature. 526 (7574): 569–573. Bibcode:2015Natur.526..569P. doi:10.1038/nature15697. PMID 26444237. S2CID 205246158. Leach, William Elford (1819). "Eleventh Room". Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum (15th ed.). London: British Museum. pp. 63-68 [66]. Although the name of the author is not specified in the document, Leach was the Keeper of Zoology at the time. Bock, Walter J. (1994). History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. Number 222. New York: American Museum of Natural History. pp. 139, 245. Cade, Tom J.; Willoughby, Ernest J.; MacLean, Gordon L. (1966). "Drinking Behavior of Sandgrouse in the Namib and Kalahari Deserts, Africa" (PDF). The Auk. 83 (1): 124–126. doi:10.2307/4082983. JSTOR 4082983. Allen, Barbara (2009). Pigeon. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-86189-711-4. Baptista, L. F.; Trail, P. W.; Horblit, H. M. (1997). "Family Columbidae (Doves and Pigeons)". In del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. (eds.). Handbook of birds of the world. Vol. 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. ISBN 978-84-87334-22-1. Johnson, Kevin P.; Clayton, Dale H. (2000). "Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genes Contain Similar Phylogenetic. Signal for Pigeons and Doves (Aves: Columbiformes)" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 14 (1): 141–151. doi:10.1006/mpev.1999.0682. PMID 10631048. Johnson, Kevin P.; de Kort, Selvino; Dinwoodey, Karen; Mateman, A. C.; ten Cate, Carel; Lessells, C. M. & Clayton, Dale H. (2001). "A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera Streptopelia and Columba" (PDF). Auk. 118 (4): 874–887. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0874:AMPOTD]2.0.CO;2. hdl:20.500.11755/a92515bb-c1c6-4c0e-ae9a-849936c41ca2. JSTOR 4089839. S2CID 26083712. Shapiro, Beth; Sibthorpe, Dean; Rambaut, Andrew; Austin, Jeremy; Wragg, Graham M.; Bininda-Emonds, Olaf R. P.; Lee, Patricia L. M.; Cooper, Alan (2002). "Flight of the Dodo". Science. 295 (5560): 1683. doi:10.1126/science.295.5560.1683. PMID 11872833. S2CID 29245617. Supplementary information Janoo, Anwar (2005). "Discovery of isolated dodo bones Raphus cucullatus (L.), Aves, Columbiformes from Mauritius cave shelters highlights human predation, with a comment on the status of the family Raphidae Wetmore, 1930". Annales de Paléontologie. 91 (2): 167. Bibcode:2005AnPal..91..167J. doi:10.1016/j.annpal.2004.12.002. Cheke, Anthony; Hume, Julian P. (2010). Lost Land of the Dodo: The Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion and Rodrigues. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4081-3305-7. "dodo | extinct bird". Encyclopedia Britannica. 7 August 2023. Christidis, Les; Boles, Walter E. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-0-643-09964-7. Fountaine, Toby M. R.; Benton, Michael J.; Dyke, Gareth J.; Nudds, Robert L. (2005). "The quality of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 272 (1560): 289–294. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2923. PMC 1634967. PMID 15705554. Olson, Storrs L. (1985). "The fossil record of birds". In Farmer, Donald S.; King, James R.; Parkes, Kenneth C. (eds.). Avian Biology, Vol. VIII. Academic Press. pp. 79–238. hdl:10088/6553. ISBN 978-0-12-249408-6. "The earliest dove yet known, from the early Miocene (Aquitanian) of France, was a small species named Columba calcaria by Milne-Edwards (1867–1871) from a single humerus, for which Lambrecht (1933) later created the genus Gerandia" Worthy, Trevor H.; Hand, Suzanne J.; Worthy, Jennifer P.; Tennyson, Alan J. D.; Scofield, R. Paul (2009). "A large fruit pigeon (Columbidae) from the Early Miocene of New Zealand". The Auk. 126 (3): 649–656. doi:10.1525/auk.2009.08244. S2CID 86799657. "Because Columba calcaria Milne-Edwards, 1867–1871, from the Lower Miocene at Saint-Gérand-le-Puy in France, is now also considered a sandgrouse, as Gerandia calcaria (Mlíkovský 2002), there is no pre-Pliocene columbid record in Europe." "Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database". fossilworks.org. Mayr, Gerald (2009). Paleogene Fossil Birds. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-89628-9. "Columbidae (doves and pigeons)". Animal Diversity Web. "Victoria crowned-pigeon videos, photos and facts – Goura victoria". Arkive. Archived from the original on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2017. "Southern crowned-pigeon videos, photos and facts – Goura scheepmakeri". Arkive. Archived from the original on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2017. Thorsen, M., Blanvillain, C., & Sulpice, R. (2002). Reasons for decline, conservation needs, and a translocation of the critically endangered upe (Marquesas imperial pigeon, Ducula galeata), French Polynesia. Department of Conservation. Smith, Paul. "COLUMBIDAE Pigeons and Doves FAUNA PARAGUAY". www.faunaparaguay.com. Hagey, LR; Schteingart, CD; Ton-Nu, HT; Hofmann, AF (1994). "Biliary bile acids of fruit pigeons and doves (Columbiformes)". Journal of Lipid Research. 35 (11): 2041–8. doi:10.1016/S0022-2275(20)39950-8. PMID 7868982. "Doves". The Medieval Bestiary. Retrieved 31 January 2010. Browne, Thomas (1646). Pseudodoxia Epidemica. Vol. III.iii (1672 ed.). available online at University of Chicago. Retrieved 31 January 2010. "Columbiformes (Pigeons, Doves, and Dodos) – Dictionary definition of Columbiformes (Pigeons, Doves, and Dodos)". www.encyclopedia.com. Clairmont, Patsy (2014). Twirl: A Fresh Spin at Life. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-8499-2299-2. "Why do pigeons bob their heads when they walk? Everyday Mysteries: Fun Science Facts from the Library of Congress". www.loc.gov. Necker, R (2007). "Head-bobbing of walking birds" (PDF). Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 193 (12): 1177–83. doi:10.1007/s00359-007-0281-3. PMID 17987297. S2CID 10803990. Schodde, Richard; Mason, I. J. (1997). Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-0-643-06037-1. Skutch, A. F. (1964). "Life Histories of Central American Pigeons" (PDF). Wilson Bulletin. 76 (3): 211. "DiversityofLife2012 – Pigeon". diversityoflife2012.wikispaces.com. Hilty, Steven L. (2002). Birds of Venezuela. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3409-9. Valdez, Diego Javier; Benitez-Vieyra, Santiago Miguel (2016). "A Spectrophotometric Study of Plumage Color in the Eared Dove (Zenaida auriculata), the Most Abundant South American Columbiforme". PLOS ONE. 11 (5): e0155501. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1155501V. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155501. PMC 4877085. PMID 27213273. "Pigeon family Columbidae". creagrus.home.montereybay.com. Alerstam, Thomas (1993). Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-44822-2. Forshaw, Joseph; Cooper, William (2015). Pigeons and Doves in Australia. Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4863-0405-9. Pap, Péter L.; Osváth, Gergely; Sándor, Krisztina; Vincze, Orsolya; Bărbos, Lőrinc; Marton, Attila; Nudds, Robert L.; Vágási, Csongor I. (2015). Williams, Tony (ed.). "Interspecific variation in the structural properties of flight feathers in birds indicates adaptation to flight requirements and habitat". Functional Ecology. 29 (6): 746–757. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12419. "Pigeons and Doves (Columbidae) – Dictionary definition of Pigeons and Doves (Columbidae)". www.encyclopedia.com. "Zenaida auriculata (eared dove)". Animal Diversity Web. "Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) detail". natureconservation.in. 5 February 2019. "Laughing Dove This Bird Is Native To Subsaharan Africa The Middle East And India Where It Is Known As The Little Brown Dove It Inhabits Scrubland And Feeds On Grass Seeds And Grain Stock Photo". www.gettyimages.in. Archived from the original on 25 April 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2017. "Whistling Fruit Doves". www.beautyofbirds.com. 16 September 2021. Gibbs, David (2010). Pigeons and Doves: A Guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4081-3555-6. "Grenada Dove (Leptotila wellsi) - BirdLife species factsheet". datazone.birdlife.org. Schodde, Richard; Mason, I. J. (1997). Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-0-643-06037-1. Baptista, Luis F.; Trail, Pepper W.; Horblit, H. M.; Sharpe, Christopher J.; Boesman, Peter F. D.; Garcia, Ernest (4 March 2020). Del Hoyo, Josep; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi; Christie, David; De Juana, Eduardo (eds.). "Somali Pigeon (Columba oliviae)". Birds of the World. doi:10.2173/bow.sompig1.01. S2CID 240954419. "Rock Pigeons (Columba livia) aka Feral or Domestic Pigeons". www.beautyofbirds.com. 16 September 2021. Sokol, Joshua (23 April 2020). "New York and Boston Pigeons Don't Mix". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 27 April 2020. "What Do Doves Eat – Best Food For Doves". www.birdfeedersspot.com. "Pigeons And Doves – What's The Differance?". birdsofeden.co.za. 22 July 2011. Campbell, Bruce; Lack, Elizabeth (2010). A Dictionary of Birds. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4081-3838-0. Belguermi, Ahmed; Bovet, Dalila; Anouck, Pascal; Prevot-Julliard, Anne-Caroline; Jalme, Michel Saint; Rat-Fishcer, Lauriane; Leboucher, Gerard (2011). "Pigeons discriminate between human feeders". Animal Cognition. 14 (6): 909–914. doi:10.1007/s10071-011-0420-7. PMID 21647649. S2CID 8632076. "Species Extinction Time Line | Animals Lost Since 1600". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 16 March 2013. "The Birds". The New Yorker. 6 January 2014. "Passenger Pigeon". Nebraska Bird Library. Gibbs, David (2010). Pigeons and Doves: A Guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-4081-3556-3. Walker, J. (2007). "Geographical patterns of threat among pigeons and doves (Columbidae)". Oryx. 41 (3): 289–299. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001016. BirdLife International (2009). "Socorro Dove Zenaida graysoni". Data Zone. BirdLife International. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 26 June 2009. "Ptilinopus arcanus (Negros Fruit-dove, Negros Fruit Dove, Negros Fruit-Dove)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. October 2016. "Alopecoenas erythropterus (Polynesian Ground-dove, Polynesian Ground Dove, Polynesian Ground-Dove, Society Islands Ground-dove, White-collared Ground-dove)". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. October 2017. Tidemann, Sonia C.; Gosler, Andrew (2012). Ethno-ornithology: "Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society". Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-54384-5. "Pigeons Awarded First Dickin Medals for Bravery ⋆ History Channel". History Channel. 20 June 2016. Eastman, John (2000). The Eastman Guide to Birds: Natural History Accounts for 150 North American Species. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-4552-9. "See some of the 67 animals who've been handed the Dickin Medal for bravery". BBC. 5 April 2016. "Cher Ami". National Museum of American History. "Cher Ami "Dear Friend" WWI". Flickr. 25 September 2006. Retrieved 26 April 2008. "Aerial athletes". New Age Xtra. Archived from the original on 7 October 2017. Retrieved 30 April 2017. Shapiro, Michael D.; Domyan, Eric T. (2013). "Domestic pigeons". Current Biology. 23 (8): R302–R303. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.063. PMC 4854524. PMID 23618660. "WysInfo Docuwebs – The Columbidae Family". www.wysinfo.com. "Release of White Doves for your wedding from Pangroove Elegant Events In Barbados". www.pangroove.com. Archived from the original on 16 August 2017. Retrieved 30 April 2017. Brough, Clarice. "White Dove". Animal World. Retrieved 12 March 2022. Montague, Andrew (16 August 2000). Successful Shotgun Shooting. Derrydale Press. ISBN 9781461702702. Archived from the original on 16 December 2020. Retrieved 8 October 2021. Montague, Andrew (2000). Successful Shotgun Shooting. The Derrydale Press. p. 98. ISBN 1568331649. Botterweck, G. Johannes; Ringgren, Helmer (1990). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-8028-2330-4. Lewis, Sian; Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd (2018). The Culture of Animals in Antiquity: A Sourcebook with Commentaries. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 335. ISBN 978-1-315-20160-3. Kovacs, Maureen Gallery (1989). The Epic of Gilgamesh. Stanford University Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-8047-1711-3. Resig, Dorothy D. The Enduring Symbolism of Doves, From Ancient Icon to Biblical Mainstay" Archived 31 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine, BAR Magazine. Cyrino, Monica S. (2010). Aphrodite. Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. pp. 120–123. ISBN 978-0-415-77523-6. Tinkle, Theresa (1996). Medieval Venuses and Cupids: Sexuality, Hermeneutics, and English Poetry. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0804725156. Simon, Erika (1983). Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Companion. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-09184-2. Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (2000). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-5356-503-2. Yonah Jonah Blue Letter Bible. Blueletterbible.org. Retrieved on 5 March 2013. God's Kingdom Ministries serious Bible Study Chapter 12: The Sign of Jonah. Gods-kingdom-ministries.net. Retrieved on 5 March 2013. "The Dawn of Prophethood". Al-Islam.org. 18 October 2012. Eggs. Cooking Methods & Materials, Critter Cuisine "TPWD: Doves and Pigeons – Introducing Birds to Young Naturalists". tpwd.texas.gov. "Why the Passenger Pigeon Went Extinct". Audubon. 17 April 2014. CHAPTER 40 – DINNERS AND DINING Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. Mrsbeeton.com. Retrieved on 5 March 2013. "Passenger Pigeon Plaque". Wisconsin Historical Society. December 2003. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "A Monument for a Lost Bird". Aldo Leopold Foundation. 29 July 2021. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Monument voor de Oorlogsduif". monument.heritage.brussels/. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Monument voor de oorlogsduif en duivenliefhebbers voor het" (PDF). Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Monument to Carrier Pigeons - Lille, France". Atlas Obscura. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Pigeon monument in Tokyo". Monuments Reveal. 2 February 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Memorial War Pigeons". Traces of War. Retrieved 17 March 2023.     "Martha - Passenger Pigeon Memorial Hut". Roadside America. Retrieved 12 March 2023. Further reading     Blechman, Andrew, Pigeons: The Fascinating Saga of the World's Most Revered and Reviled Bird (Grove Press 2007) ISBN 978-0-8021-4328-0     Gibbs, Barnes and Cox, Pigeons and Doves (Pica Press 2001) ISBN 1-873403-60-7 External links Wikiquote has quotations related to Doves. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Columbidae. Wikispecies has information related to Columbidae. Look up Columbidae in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.     Columbidae.org.uk Conservation of pigeons and doves     Dove videos on the Internet Bird Collection     The differences between doves & pigeons     Pigeon Fact Sheet from the National Pest Management Association with information on habits, habitat and health threats     "Pigeon breeds: from the NPA Standard – Table of Contents by Groups". NPAUSA.org. American National Pigeon Association. 2014.     "British Pigeon Show Society Hall of Fame, Show Categories and Trophies". Showpigeons. British Pigeon Show Society. 2014.     "List of the Breeds of Fancy Pigeons" (PDF). Entente Européenne d'Áviculture et de Cuniculture. 1 October 2009.     The Complete Guide To Pigeons (Columbidae)     vte Pigeons and doves (Columbidae)     Common Domestic Feral Life and behavior     Crop milk Intelligence Olfactory navigation Sarcocystis calchasi Breeds and types     Fancy         Fantail Pouter Trumpeter Flying/Sporting         Roller Tippler Tumbler Homing Utility         Squab Relationship with humans     As food Domestication Dovecote IP over Avian Carriers Fancying         Bird fancier's lung Photography Post Sport         Clay pigeon Racing Shooting Pigeon whistle Release dove Symbols War Organizations     American Racing Pigeon Union National Pigeon Service Royal Pigeon Racing Association         British Homing World Show of the Year Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons United States Army Pigeon Service Up North Combine Related     Wild pigeon genera Wild pigeon species     Category     vte Birds (class: Aves)     Outline Anatomy     Beak Brain Crop         milk Dactyly Eggs Feathers Flight Preen gland Plumage Vision Behaviour     Singing Intelligence Migration Foraging Sexual selection Lek mating Seabird breeding Incubation Brood parasites Nesting Hybrids Evolution     Origin of birds         Theropoda dinosaurs Origin of flight Evolution of birds Darwin's finches Seabirds Fossil birds     Archaeopteryx Omnivoropterygiformes Jeholornithidae Confuciusornithiformes Enantiornithes Chaoyangiformes Patagopterygiformes Ambiortiformes Songlingornithiformes Hongshanornithidae Gansuiformes Ichthyornithiformes Hesperornithes Lithornithiformes Dinornithiformes Aepyornithiformes Gastornithiformes Human interaction     Ringing Ornithology Ornithomancy Bird collections Birdwatching         big year Bird feeding Conservation Aviculture Waterfowl hunting Cockfighting Pigeon racing Falconry Pheasantry Imping Egg collecting Lists     Families and orders Genera Glossary of bird terms List by population Lists by region Extinct species since 1500 Late Quaternary prehistoric birds Notable birds         individuals fictional Neornithes     Category Commons Portal WikiProject     vte Human use of birds Activities     Aviculture Birdwatching         Bird hide Big year Bird conservation Fletching In sport         Cockfighting Falconry Pigeon racing Vinkensport In science         Model organism Ornithology In mythology and religion         Augury Sacred ibis Sky burial In hunting         Cormorant fishing Driven grouse shooting Plume hunting Wildfowling Products     Chicken Down Egg Feather Guano Poultry In the arts     In art         Bird-and-flower painting Feather tights In heraldry         Avalerion Crow/Raven Eagle Gallic rooster Martlet Turul In poetry         The Conference of the Birds Ode to a Nightingale To a Skylark Crow In prose         A History of British Birds The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck The Ugly Duckling Jonathan Livingston Seagull In theatre and ballet         The Birds Swan Lake The Firebird In film         The Birds Kes The Big Year Animated films Chicken films Horror films In music In fashion         Aigrette Feather boa Feather cloak In dance         Cendrawasih Chicken dance Species     Golden eagle Penguin Pigeon/Dove Raven         of the Tower of London People     Illustrators         John James Audubon (The Birds of America) Thomas Bewick John Gould Lars Jonsson John Gerrard Keulemans Edward Lear Richard Lewington Roger Tory Peterson Henry Constantine Richter Joseph Smit Archibald Thorburn Joseph Wolf Conservationists         Niels Krabbe Peter Scott Organisations         BirdLife International Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Related     Human–dinosaur coexistence Category:Birds and humans Zoomusicology Taxon identifiers     Wikidata: Q10856 Wikispecies: Columbidae AFD: Columbidae BOLD: 1462 CoL: 8GD EoL: 7978 EPPO: 1COLUF Fauna Europaea: 10794 Fauna Europaea (new): 7c26493e-e864-448f-a72f-a17d82af9471 Fossilworks: 39353 GBIF: 5233 iNaturalist: 2715 IRMNG: 101600 ITIS: 177061 NBN: NBNSYS0000159738 NCBI: 8930 NZOR: 0263d302-5e5b-446f-b7d3-f0bdb89fbd39 WoRMS: 196065 Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata National     Spain France BnF data Germany Israel United States Czech Republic Other     NARA Categories:     ColumbidaeBird familiesGame birdsNational symbols of CyprusNational symbols of FijiNational symbols of GuineaNational symbols of TongaExtant Miocene first appearancesTaxa named by William Elford LeachPeace symbols Israeli–Palestinian conflict Article Talk Read View source View history Tools Extended-protected article From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We depend on donations averaging about £6 in the UK This Tuesday, we ask you to join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just £2, we'd hit our goal in a couple of hours. £2 is all we ask. GIVE £2 MAYBE LATER 28 November: Wikipedia is still not on the market.  Please don't skip this 1-minute read. This Tuesday, 28 November, our nonprofit asks for your support. It matters. Wikipedia is free and doesn't rely on ads. Just 2% of our readers donate, so if Wikipedia has given you £2 worth of knowledge, please give. Any contribution helps, whether it's £2 or £25. Give £2  Give a different amount Wikimedia Foundation Logo Proud host of Wikipedia and its sister sites MAYBE LATER I ALREADY DONATED CLOSE  For the ongoing war, see 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Not to be confused with the Arab–Israeli conflict, the broader conflict between Israel and the Arab world as a whole. Israeli–Palestinian conflict Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict Situation in the Israeli-occupied territories, as of December 2011, per the United Nations OCHA[1] Date 14 May 1948 – present (75 years, 6 months, 1 week and 6 days) Location IsraelPalestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) Status Ongoing Israeli–Palestinian peace process (stalled) Gaza–Israel conflict (intermittent) Territorial changes 1948–1967: Since 1967:   Belligerents  Israel  State of Palestine  All-Palestine Government (1948–1959)  Palestine Liberation Organization (1964–present)  Palestinian National Authority (1994–present) Governance (PNA):  Fatah (West Bank)  Hamas (Gaza Strip) Casualties and losses 21,500+ casualties (1965–2013)[2][needs update] The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing military and political conflict in the Levant. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest continuing conflicts.[3] Various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, alongside other efforts to resolve the broader Arab–Israeli conflict.[4][5][6][7] Public declarations of the desire to see a Jewish homeland established in Palestine, including the First Zionist Congress of 1897 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, created early tensions in the region after waves of Jewish immigration. Following World War I, the Mandate for Palestine included a binding obligation for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Tensions grew into open sectarian conflict between Jews and Arabs.[8][9] The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was never implemented and provoked the 1947–1949 Palestine War. The current Israeli-Palestinian status quo began following Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, known as the Palestinian territories, in the 1967 Six-Day War. Progress was made towards a two-state solution with the Oslo Accords of 1993–1995. Final status issues include the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security and water rights[10] as well as Palestinian freedom of movement[11] and the Palestinian right of return. The violence of the conflict in the region—rich in sites of historic, cultural, and religious interest worldwide—has been the subject of numerous international conferences dealing with historic rights, security issues, and human rights, and has been a factor limiting access to, and tourism in, areas that are highly contested.[12] The majority of peace efforts have been centred around the two-state solution, which involves the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Public support for a two-state solution, which formerly enjoyed support from both Israeli Jews and Palestinians,[13][14][15] has dwindled in recent years.[16][17][18] Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions, with some claiming that the violence perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinians is part of a genocide, while others claim Palestinians use worldwide terrorism to promote their interests. Since its inception, the conflict's casualties have not been restricted to combatants, with a large number of civilian fatalities on both sides. A minority of Jewish Israelis (32 percent) support a two-state solution with the Palestinians.[19] Israeli Jews are divided along ideological lines, and many favor maintaining the status quo.[17] Approximately 60 percent of Palestinians (77% in the Gaza Strip and 46% in the West Bank), support armed attacks against Israelis within Israel as a means of ending the occupation, while 70% believe that a two-state solution is no longer practical or possible as a result of the expansion of Israeli settlements.[18] More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that if the West Bank were annexed by Israel, Palestinians resident there should not be permitted to vote.[20] Mutual distrust and significant disagreements are deep over basic issues, as is the reciprocal skepticism about the other side's commitment to upholding obligations in an eventual bilateral agreement.[21] Since 2006, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas, a militant Islamist group that gained control of the Gaza Strip.[22] Attempts to remedy this have been repeated and continuing. Since 2019, the Israeli side has also been experiencing political upheaval, with four inconclusive legislative elections having been held over a span of two years.[23][24] The latest round of peace negotiations began in July 2013 but were suspended in 2014. Since 2006, Hamas and Israel have fought five wars, the most recent in 2023.[22] The two parties that engage in direct negotiation are the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Official negotiations are mediated by the Quartet on the Middle East, which consists of the United Nations, the United States, Russia, and the European Union. The Arab League, which has proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, is another important actor. Egypt, a founding member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant in the Arab–Israeli conflict and related negotiations, more so since the Egypt–Israel peace treaty. Another key participant is Jordan, which annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held it until 1967, relinquishing its territorial claim over it to the Palestinians in 1988. An Israel–Jordan peace treaty was signed in 1994. The Jordanian royal family, the Hashemites, are responsible for custodianship over Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. Background Main article: Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine See also: Arab-Israeli conflict § Background The Palestinian Arab Christian-owned Falastin newspaper featuring a caricature on its 18 June 1936 edition showing Zionism as a crocodile under the protection of a British officer telling Palestinian Arabs: "don't be afraid!!! I will swallow you peacefully...".[25] The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has its roots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the birth of major nationalist movements among the Jews and among the Arabs, both geared towards attaining sovereignty for their people in the Middle East.[26] The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.[27] The collision between those two movements in southern Levant upon the emergence of Palestinian nationalism after the Franco-Syrian War in the 1920s escalated into the Sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine in 1930s and 1940s, and expanded into the wider Arab–Israeli conflict later on.[28] The return of several hard-line Palestinian Arab nationalists, under the emerging leadership of Haj Amin al-Husseini, from Damascus to Mandatory Palestine marked the beginning of Palestinian Arab nationalist struggle towards establishment of a national home for Arabs of Palestine.[29] Amin al-Husseini, the architect of the Palestinian Arab national movement, immediately marked Jewish national movement and Jewish immigration to Palestine as the sole enemy to his cause,[30] initiating large-scale riots against the Jews as early as 1920 in Jerusalem and in 1921 in Jaffa. Among the results of the violence was the establishment of the Jewish paramilitary force Haganah. In 1929, a series of violent riots resulted in the deaths of 133 Jews and 116 Arabs, with significant Jewish casualties in Hebron and Safed, and the evacuation of Jews from Hebron and Gaza.[26] The Arab revolt of 1936–1939 in Palestine, motivated by opposition to mass Jewish immigration allowed by the British Mandate. In the early 1930s, the Arab national struggle in Palestine had drawn many Arab nationalist militants from across the Middle East, such as Sheikh Izaddin al-Qassam from Syria, who established the Black Hand militant group and had prepared the grounds for the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Following the death of al-Qassam at the hands of the British in late 1935, tensions erupted in 1936 into the Arab general strike and general boycott. The strike soon deteriorated into violence, and the Arab revolt was bloodily repressed by the British assisted by associated forces of the Jewish Settlement Police, the Jewish Supernumerary Police, and Special Night Squads.[28] In the first wave of organized violence, lasting until early 1937, most of the Arab groups were defeated by the British, and forced expulsion of much of the Arab leadership ensued. The revolt led to the establishment of the Peel Commission towards partitioning of Palestine, though it was subsequently rejected by the Palestinian Arabs. The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, accepted the recommendations but some secondary Jewish leaders disapproved of it.[31][32][33] The renewed violence, which continued sporadically until the beginning of World War II, ended with around 5,000 casualties, mostly from the Arab side. With the eruption of World War II, the situation in Mandatory Palestine calmed down. It allowed a shift towards a more moderate stance among Palestinian Arabs under the leadership of the Nashashibi clan and even the establishment of the Jewish–Arab Palestine Regiment under British command, fighting Germans in North Africa. The more radical exiled faction of al-Husseini, however, tended to cooperate with Nazi Germany, and participated in the establishment of a pro-Nazi propaganda machine throughout the Arab world. The defeat of Arab nationalists in Iraq and subsequent relocation of al-Husseini to Nazi-occupied Europe tied his hands regarding field operations in Palestine, though he regularly demanded that the Italians and the Germans bomb Tel Aviv. By the end of World War II, a crisis over the fate of the Holocaust survivors from Europe led to renewed tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab leadership. Immigration quotas were established by the British, while on the other hand illegal immigration and Zionist insurgency against the British was increasing.[26] Land in the lighter shade represents territory within the borders of Israel at the conclusion of the 1948 war. This land is internationally recognized as belonging to Israel. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 181(II)[34] recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to partition Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem.[35] On the next day, Palestine was swept by violence. For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating.[36] The Arab League supported the Arab struggle by forming the volunteer-based Arab Liberation Army, supporting the Palestinian Arab Army of the Holy War, under the leadership of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni and Hasan Salama. On the Jewish side, the civil war was managed by the major underground militias – the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi – strengthened by numerous Jewish veterans of World War II and foreign volunteers. By spring 1948, it was already clear that the Arab forces were nearing a total collapse, while Yishuv forces gained more and more territory, creating a large scale refugee problem of Palestinian Arabs.[26] History Main article: History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict For a chronological guide, see Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Further information: Military operations of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 1948 Arab–Israeli War Main article: 1948 Arab-Israeli War Following the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab League decided to intervene on behalf of Palestinian Arabs, marching their forces into former British Palestine, beginning the main phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[35] The overall fighting, leading to around 15,000 casualties, resulted in cease-fire and armistice agreements of 1949, with Israel holding much of the former Mandate territory, Jordan occupying and later annexing the West Bank and Egypt taking over the Gaza Strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the Arab League on 22 September 1948.[28] 1956 Arab–Israeli War Main article: 1956 Suez Crisis Through the 1950s, Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants' cross-border attacks into Israel, while Israel carried out its own reprisal operations in the host countries. The 1956 Suez Crisis resulted in a short-term Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and exile of the All-Palestine Government, which was later restored with Israeli withdrawal. The All-Palestine Government was completely abandoned by Egypt in 1959 and was officially merged into the United Arab Republic, to the detriment of the Palestinian national movement. Gaza Strip then was put under the authority of the Egyptian military administrator, making it a de facto military occupation. In 1964, however, a new organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was established by Yasser Arafat.[35] It immediately won the support of most Arab League governments and was granted a seat in the Arab League. 1967 Arab–Israeli War Main article: 1967 Six Day War During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. Each of these territories except the Sinai remain under Israeli occupation. The 1967 Six-Day War exerted a significant effect upon Palestinian nationalism, as Israel gained military control of the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Consequently, the PLO was unable to establish any control on the ground and established its headquarters in Jordan, home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and supported the Jordanian army during the War of Attrition, which included the Battle of Karameh. However, the Palestinian base in Jordan collapsed with the Jordanian–Palestinian civil war in 1970. The PLO defeat by the Jordanians caused most of the Palestinian militants to relocate to South Lebanon, where they soon took over large areas, creating the so-called "Fatahland". 1973 Arab–Israeli War Main article: Yom Kippur War On October 6, 1973, a coalition of Arab forces consisting of mainly Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. Egyptian and Syria had crossed over the ceasefire lines that were agreed upon prior to 1973. Egypt had in particular tried to reoccupy much of the area surrounding the Suez Canal, whilst the frontline with Syria was mainly situated around the north in the Golan Heights. The war concluded with an Israeli victory, with both sides suffering tremendous casualties. 1982 Lebanon War Main article: 1982 Lebanon War Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon peaked in the early 1970s, as Lebanon was used as a base to launch attacks on northern Israel and airplane hijacking campaigns worldwide, which drew Israeli retaliation. During the Lebanese Civil War, Palestinian militants continued to launch attacks against Israel while also battling opponents within Lebanon. In 1978, the Coastal Road massacre led to the Israeli full-scale invasion known as Operation Litani. Israeli forces, however, quickly withdrew from Lebanon, and the attacks against Israel resumed. In 1982, following an assassination attempt on one of its diplomats by Palestinians, the Israeli government decided to take sides in the Lebanese Civil War and the 1982 Lebanon War commenced. The initial results for Israel were successful. Most Palestinian militants were defeated within several weeks, Beirut was captured, and the PLO headquarters were evacuated to Tunisia in June by Yasser Arafat's decision.[28] First Intifada (1987–1993) Main article: First Intifada The first Palestinian uprising began in 1987 as a response to escalating attacks and the endless occupation. By the early 1990s, international efforts to settle the conflict had begun, in light of the success of the Egyptian–Israeli peace treaty of 1982. Eventually, the Israeli–Palestinian peace process led to the Oslo Accords of 1993, allowing the PLO to relocate from Tunisia and take ground in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, establishing the Palestinian National Authority. The peace process also had significant opposition among radical Islamic elements of Palestinian society, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who immediately initiated a campaign of attacks targeting Israelis. Following hundreds of casualties and a wave of radical anti-government propaganda, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli far-right extremist who objected to the peace initiative. This struck a serious blow to the peace process, from which the newly elected government of Israel in 1996 backed off.[26] Second Intifada (2000–2005) Main article: Second Intifada The iconic picture of Faris Odeh, who was killed during the Second Intifada in early November 2000, throwing a stone at an Israeli tank in the Gaza Strip. Aftermath of a Palestinian suicide bombing on a bus in Tel Aviv Following several years of unsuccessful negotiations, the conflict re-erupted as the Second Intifada in September 2000.[28] The violence, escalating into an open conflict between the Palestinian National Security Forces and the Israel Defense Forces, lasted until 2004/2005 and led to approximately 130 fatalities. In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon ordered the removal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza. Israel and its Supreme Court formally declared an end to occupation, saying it "had no effective control over what occurred" in Gaza.[37] However, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continue to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza Strip's airspace, territorial waters and controls the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[37][38][39] Fatah–Hamas split (2006–2007) In 2006, Hamas won a plurality of 44% in the Palestinian parliamentary election. Israel responded it would begin economic sanctions unless Hamas agreed to accept prior Israeli–Palestinian agreements, forswear violence, and recognize Israel's right to exist, all of which Hamas rejected.[40] After internal Palestinian political struggle between Fatah and Hamas erupted into the Battle of Gaza (2007), Hamas took full control of the area.[41] In 2007, Israel imposed a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, and cooperation with Egypt allowed a ground blockade of the Egyptian border. The tensions between Israel and Hamas escalated until late 2008, when Israel launched operation Cast Lead upon Gaza, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties and billions of dollars in damage. By February 2009, a ceasefire was signed with international mediation between the parties, though the occupation and small and sporadic eruptions of violence continued.[citation needed] In 2011, a Palestinian Authority attempt to gain UN membership as a fully sovereign state failed. In Hamas-controlled Gaza, sporadic rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli air raids still take place.[42][43][44][45] In November 2012, the representation of Palestine in UN was upgraded to a non-member observer State, and its mission title was changed from "Palestine (represented by PLO)" to "State of Palestine". In 2014, another war between Israel and Gaza occurred resulting in over 70 Israeli casualties and over 2000 Palestinians casualties. Israeli far-right government (2022) In November 2022, with the election of the 37th government of Israel, a coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu and notable for its inclusion of far-right politicians,[46] violence in the conflict increased, with events such as the January 2023 Jenin incursion, the June 2023 Jenin incursion, the July 2023 Jenin incursion, the 2023 Neve Yaakov shooting, the 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes, the May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes, and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, alongside Palestinian political violence has produced a death toll in 2023 that is the highest in the conflict since 2005.[47] Peace process Main article: Israeli–Palestinian peace process Oslo Accords (1993, 1995) Main article: Oslo Accords A peace movement poster: Israeli and Palestinian flags and the word peace in Arabic and Hebrew. In 1993, Israeli officials led by Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leaders from the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat strove to find a peaceful solution through what became known as the Oslo peace process. A crucial milestone in this process was Arafat's letter of recognition of Israel's right to exist. In 1993, the Oslo Accords were finalized as a framework for future Israeli–Palestinian relations. The crux of the Oslo agreement was that Israel would gradually cede control of the Palestinian territories over to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. The Oslo process was delicate and progressed in fits and starts. The process took a turning point at the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 and finally unraveled when Arafat and Ehud Barak failed to reach an agreement at Camp David in July 2000. Robert Malley, special assistant to US President Bill Clinton for Arab–Israeli Affairs, has confirmed that while Barak made no formal written offer to Arafat, the US did present concepts for peace which were considered by the Israeli side yet left unanswered by Arafat: "the Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own".[48] Consequently, there are different accounts of the proposals considered.[49][50][51] Camp David Summit (2000) Main article: 2000 Camp David Summit Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat during the Oslo Accords on 13 September 1993. In July 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak reportedly put forward the following as "bases for negotiation", via the US to the Palestinian President: a non-militarized Palestinian state split into 3–4 parts containing 87–92%[en 1] of the West Bank including only parts of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip,[52][53] as well as a stipulation that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel, no right of return to Israel, no sovereignty over the Temple Mount or any core East Jerusalem neighbourhoods, and continued Israel control over the Jordan Valley.[54][55] Arafat rejected this offer.[52][56][57][58][59][60] According to the Palestinian negotiators the offer did not remove many of the elements of the Israeli occupation regarding land, security, settlements, and Jerusalem.[61] President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami who kept a diary of the negotiations said in an interview in 2001, when asked whether the Palestinians made a counterproposal: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."[62] In a separate interview in 2006 Ben Ami stated that were he a Palestinian he would have rejected the Camp David offer.[63] No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense US pressure. Clinton has long blamed Arafat for the collapse of the summit.[64] In the months following the summit, Clinton appointed former US Senator George J. Mitchell to lead a fact-finding committee aiming to identify strategies for restoring the peace process. The committee's findings were published in 2001 with the dismantlement of existing Israeli settlements and Palestinian crackdown on militant activity being one strategy.[65] Developments following Camp David Main article: The Clinton Parameters Israeli West Bank barrier in Bethlehem Following the failed summit Palestinian and Israeli negotiators continued to meet in small groups through August and September 2000 to try to bridge the gaps between their respective positions. The United States prepared its own plan to resolve the outstanding issues. Clinton's presentation of the US proposals was delayed by the advent of the Second Intifada at the end of September.[61] Clinton's plan, eventually presented on 23 December 2000, proposed the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in the Gaza strip and 94–96 percent of the West Bank plus the equivalent of 1–3 percent of the West Bank in land swaps from pre-1967 Israel. On Jerusalem, the plan stated that "the general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and that Jewish areas are Israeli." The holy sites were to be split on the basis that Palestinians would have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble sanctuary, while the Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall. On refugees the plan suggested a number of proposals including financial compensation, the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israeli acknowledgment of suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948. Security proposals referred to a "non-militarized" Palestinian state, and an international force for border security. Both sides accepted Clinton's plan[61][66][67] and it became the basis for the negotiations at the Taba Peace summit the following January.[61] Taba Summit (2001) Main article: Taba Summit The Israeli negotiation team presented a new map at the Taba Summit in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation. With Israeli elections looming the talks ended without an agreement but the two sides issued a joint statement attesting to the progress they had made: "The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections." The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 7 February 2001. Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.[61] Roadmap for Peace (2002–2003) Main article: Road map for peace President George W. Bush, center, discusses the peace process with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Aqaba, Jordan, 4 June 2003 One peace proposal, presented by the Quartet of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States on 17 September 2002, was the Road Map for Peace. This plan did not attempt to resolve difficult questions such as the fate of Jerusalem or Israeli settlements, but left that to be negotiated in later phases of the process. The proposal never made it beyond the first phase, whose goals called for a halt to both Israeli settlement construction and Israeli–Palestinian violence. Neither goal has been achieved as of November 2015.[68][69][70] Arab Peace Initiative (2002, 2007, 2017) Main article: Arab Peace Initiative The Arab Peace Initiative (Arabic: مبادرة السلام العربية Mubādirat as-Salām al-ʿArabīyyah), also known as the Saudi Initiative, was first proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit (2002). The peace initiative is a proposed solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular.[71] The initiative was initially published on 28 March 2002, at the Beirut Summit, and agreed upon again in 2007 in the Riyadh Summit. Unlike the Road Map for Peace, it spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.[72] The Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat immediately embraced the initiative.[73] His successor Mahmoud Abbas also supported the plan and officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.[74] Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Gaza Strip, was deeply divided,[75] with most factions rejecting the plan.[76] Palestinians have criticised the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement and another with Bahrain signed in September 2020, fearing the moves weaken the Arab Peace Initiative, regarding the UAE's move as "a betrayal."[77] The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative as a "non-starter"[78] because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders.[79] After the renewed Arab League endorsement in 2007, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave a cautious welcome to the plan.[80] In 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed tentative support for the Initiative,[81] but in 2018, he rejected it as a basis for future negotiations with the Palestinians.[82] Current status Main articles: Israeli–Palestinian peace process and Israel and apartheid The peace process has been predicated on a "two-state solution" thus far, but questions have been raised towards both sides' resolve to end the dispute.[83] An article by S. Daniel Abraham, an American entrepreneur and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace in Washington, US, published on the website of the Atlantic magazine in March 2013, cited the following statistics: "Right now, the total number of Jews and Arabs living... in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza is just under 12 million people. At the moment, a shade under 50 percent of the population is Jewish."[84] In April 2021, Human Rights Watch released its report A Threshold Crossed, making accusations that the policies of Israel towards Palestinians living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the crime of apartheid.[85] A further report titled Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity was released by Amnesty International on 1 February 2022.[86] Israel's settlements policy Israeli settlers in Hebron, West Bank Israel has had its settlement growth and policies in the Palestinian territories harshly criticized by the European Union citing it as increasingly undermining the viability of the two-state solution and running in contrary to the Israeli-stated commitment to resume negotiations.[87][88] In December 2011, all the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step".[89][90][91] In April 2012, international outrage followed Israeli steps to further entrench the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which included the publishing of tenders for further settler homes and the plan to legalize settler outposts. Britain said that the move was a breach of Israeli commitments under the road map to freeze all settlement expansion in the land captured since 1967. The British Foreign Minister stated that the "Systematic, illegal Israeli settlement activity poses the most significant and live threat to the viability of the two state solution".[92] In May 2012 the 27 foreign ministers of the European Union issued a statement which condemned continued Israeli settler violence and incitement.[93] In a similar move, the Quartet "expressed its concern over ongoing settler violence and incitement in the West Bank," calling on Israel "to take effective measures, including bringing the perpetrators of such acts to justice."[94] The Palestinian Ma'an News agency reported the PA Cabinet's statement on the issue stated that the West, including East Jerusalem, were seeing "an escalation in incitement and settler violence against our people with a clear protection from the occupation military. The last of which was the thousands of settler march in East Jerusalem which included slogans inciting to kill, hate and supports violence".[95] Israeli Military Police Main article: Military Police Corps (Israel) Protestors in Lod carrying photos of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was shot dead while reporting in the West Bank on 11 May 2022 In a report published in February 2014 covering incidents over the three-year period of 2011–2013, Amnesty International asserted that Israeli forces employed reckless violence in the West Bank, and in some instances appeared to engage in wilful killings which would be tantamount to war crimes. Besides the numerous fatalities, Amnesty said at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, had been gravely injured by Israeli use of live ammunition. In this same period, 45 Palestinians, including 6 children had been killed. Amnesty's review of 25 civilians deaths concluded that in no case was there evidence of the Palestinians posing an imminent threat. At the same time, over 8,000 Palestinians suffered serious injuries from other means, including rubber-coated metal bullets. Only one IDF soldier was convicted, killing a Palestinian attempting to enter Israel illegally. The soldier was demoted and given a 1-year sentence with a five-month suspension. The IDF answered the charges stating that its army held itself "to the highest of professional standards", adding that when there was suspicion of wrongdoing, it investigated and took action "where appropriate".[96][97] Incitement Following the Oslo Accords, which was to set up regulative bodies to rein in frictions, Palestinian incitement against Israel, Jews, and Zionism continued, parallel with Israel's pursuance of settlements in the Palestinian territories,[98] though under Abu Mazen it has reportedly dwindled significantly.[99] Charges of incitement have been reciprocal,[100][101] both sides interpreting media statements in the Palestinian and Israeli press as constituting incitement.[99] Schoolbooks published for both Israeli and Palestinian schools have been found to have encouraged one-sided narrative and even hatred of the other side.[102][103][104][105][106][107] Perpetrators of murderous attacks, whether against Israelis or Palestinians, often find strong vocal support from sections of their communities despite varying levels of condemnation from politicians.[108][109][110] Both parties to the conflict have been criticized by third-parties for teaching incitement to their children by downplaying each side's historical ties to the area, teaching propagandist maps, or indoctrinate their children to one day join the armed forces.[111][112] United Nations and Palestinian statehood Main articles: International recognition of the State of Palestine and Palestine and the United Nations   State of Palestine   Countries that have recognised the State of Palestine   Countries that have not recognised the State of Palestine The PLO have campaigned for full member status for the state of Palestine at the UN and for recognition on the 1967 borders. The campaign has received widespread support,[113][114] although it has been criticised by the US and Israel for allegedly avoiding bilateral negotiation.[115][116] Netanyahu has criticized the Palestinians of purportedly trying to bypass direct talks,[117] whereas Abbas has argued that the continued construction of Israeli-Jewish settlements is "undermining the realistic potential" for the two-state solution.[118] Although Palestine has been denied full member status by the UN Security Council,[119] in late 2012 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of sovereign Palestine by granting non-member state status.[120] Public attitudes towards peace Polling data has produced mixed results regarding the level of support among Palestinians for the two-state solution. A poll was carried out in 2011 by the Hebrew University; it indicated that support for a two-state solution was growing among both Israelis and Palestinians. The poll found that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was carried out. The poll also found that an increasing percentage of both populations supported an end to violence—63% of Palestinians and 70% of Israelis expressing their support for an end to violence, an increase of 2% for Israelis and 5% for Palestinians from the previous year.[121] Issues in dispute The following outlined positions are the official positions of the two parties; however, it is important to note that neither side holds a single position. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides include both moderate and extremist bodies as well as dovish and hawkish bodies. One of the primary obstacles to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a deep-set and growing distrust between its participants. Unilateral strategies and the rhetoric of hardline political factions, coupled with violence and incitements by civilians against one another, have fostered mutual embitterment and hostility and a loss of faith in the peace process. Support among Palestinians for Hamas is considerable, and as its members consistently call for the destruction of Israel and violence remains a threat,[122] security becomes a prime concern for many Israelis. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has led the majority of Palestinians to believe that Israel is not committed to reaching an agreement, but rather to a pursuit of establishing permanent control over this territory in order to provide that security.[123] Status of Jerusalem Main article: Status of Jerusalem See also: Western Wall, Temple Mount, and Al-Aqsa Mosque Greater Jerusalem, May 2006. CIA remote sensing map showing what the CIA regards as settlements, plus refugee camps, fences, and walls The control of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue, with each side asserting claims over the city. The three largest Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—hold Jerusalem as an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Jerusalem is the holiest city for Judaism, being the former location of the Jewish temples on the Temple Mount and the capital of the ancient Israelite kingdom. For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holiest site, being the location of Isra and Mi'raj event, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. For Christians, Jerusalem is the site of Jesus' crucifixion and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is located in the "new city" of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel's founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, it assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law declaring "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."[124][better source needed] Many countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with exceptions being the United States,[125] and Russia.[126] The majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's claims to East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six-Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation.[127] The International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" described East Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory".[128] At the Camp David and Taba Summits in 2000–2001, the United States proposed a plan in which the Arab parts of Jerusalem would be given to the proposed Palestinian state while the Jewish parts of Jerusalem were given to Israel. All archaeological work under the Temple Mount would be jointly controlled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Both sides accepted the proposal in principle, but the summits ultimately failed.[129] Holy sites and Jerusalem's Temple Mount Panorama of the Western Wall with the Dome of the Rock (left) and al-Aqsa mosque (right) in the background Israel has concerns regarding the welfare of Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall or other Jewish holy places, and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated.[129] Since 1975, Israel has banned Muslims from worshiping at Joseph's Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims. Settlers established a yeshiva, installed a Torah scroll and covered the mihrab. During the Second Intifada the site was looted and burned.[130][131] Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, though many serious incidents have still occurred.[132] Israel has allowed almost complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.[129] Palestinians have voiced concerns regarding the welfare of Christian and Muslim holy places under Israeli control.[133] Additionally, some Palestinian advocates have made statements alleging that the Western Wall Tunnel was re-opened with the intent of causing the mosque's collapse.[134] Palestinian refugees See also: Palestinian right of return, Palestinian refugee, and 1948 Palestinian exodus Palestinian refugees, 1948 Palestinian refugees are people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict[135] and the 1967 Six-Day War.[136] The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949.[137] Descendants of these original Palestinian Refugees are also eligible for registration and services provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and as of 2010 number 4.7 million people.[138] Between 350,000 and 400,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1967 Arab–Israeli war.[136] A third of the refugees live in recognized refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The remainder live in and around the cities and towns of these host countries.[135] Most of these people were born outside Israel, but are descendants of original Palestinian refugees.[135] Palestinian negotiators, such as Yasser Arafat, have so far publicly insisted that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, including those within the 1949 Armistice lines, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as evidence. However, according to reports of private peace negotiations with Israel they have countenanced the return of only 10,000 refugees and their families to Israel as part of a peace settlement. Mahmoud Abbas, the current Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization was reported to have said in private discussion that it is "illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million. That would mean the end of Israel."[139] In a further interview Abbas stated that he no longer had an automatic right to return to Safed in the northern Galilee where he was born in 1935. He later clarified that the remark was his personal opinion and not official policy.[140] This section is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (August 2023) Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds:[141][142][143] Several scholars included in the broader New Historians argue that the Palestinian refugees fled or were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun, Zionist paramilitary groups.[144][145] A number have also characterized this as an ethnic cleansing.[146][147][148][149] The New Historians cite indications of Arab leaders' desire for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put.[150] Home in Balata refugee camp demolished during the second Intifada, 2002 The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to people of Jewish descent is viewed by critics as discriminatory against other ethnic groups, especially Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship under the law of return, to the territory which they were expelled from or fled during the course of the 1948 war.[151][152][153] According to the UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."[154] UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return".[155] Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"; however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.[156] The most common arguments for opposition are: On the 18 August 1948, at the United Nations Security Council, Israel declared that it is not reasonable to contemplate a return of the refugees as the Arab League and the Arab High Committee have announced their intentions to continue their war of aggression and resume hostilities, noting that the state of war has not been lifted and that no peace treaty has been signed. However, Israel accepted the next year the return of some of the refugees, notably through the annexation of the Gaza Strip or by absorbing 100.000 of them in exchange of a peace treaty. The Arab countries refused the proposal, demanding a complete return.[157] The Palestinian refugee issue is handled by a separate authority from that handling other refugees, that is, by UNRWA and not the UNHCR. Most of the people recognizing themselves as Palestinian refugees would have otherwise been assimilated into their country of current residency, and would not maintain their refugee state if not for the separate entities.[158] Concerning the origin of the Palestinian refugees, the Israeli government said that during the 1948 War the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear.[citation needed] The Palestinian narrative is that refugees were largely expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and by the Israeli army. Historians still debate the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Notably, historian Benny Morris states that most of Palestine's 700,000 refugees fled because of the "flail of war" and expected to return home shortly after a successful Arab invasion. He documents instances in which Arab leaders advised the evacuation of entire communities as happened in Haifa. In his scholarly work, however, he does conclude that there were expulsions which were carried out.[159][160] Morris considers the displacement the result of a national conflict initiated by the Arabs themselves.[160] In a 2004 interview with Haaretz, he described the exodus as largely resulting from an atmosphere of transfer that was promoted by Ben-Gurion and understood by the military leadership. He also claimed that there "are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing".[161] He has been criticized by political scientist Norman Finkelstein for having seemingly changed his views for political, rather than historical, reasons.[162] Since Jewish people who fled or otherwise emigrated from the Arab world after the Israeli declaration of independence were never compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[163][164][165] Shatila refugee camp on the outskirts of Beirut in May 2019 Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, Israel insists that the return of this population into the current state of Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.[166] According to Efraim Karsh the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948–1949 war who attempted to "cleanse" a neighboring ethnic community. Had the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947 recommending partition in Palestine not been subverted by force by the Arab world, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place. He reports of large numbers of Palestinian refugees leaving even before the outbreak of the 1948 war because of disillusionment and economic privation. The British High Commissioner for Palestine spoke of the "collapsing Arab morale in Palestine" that he partially attributed to the "increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country" and the considerable evacuations of the Arab effendi class. Huge numbers of Palestinians were also expelled by their leadership to prevent them from becoming Israeli citizens and in Haifa and Tiberias, tens of thousands of Arabs were forcibly evacuated on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee.[167] Israeli security concerns See also: United States security assistance to the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian political violence, and 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign Remains of an Egged bus hit by suicide bomber in the aftermath of the 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. Eight people were killed, about 40 were injured. Throughout the conflict, Palestinian violence has been a concern for Israelis. Israel,[168] along with the United States[169][better source needed] and the European Union, refer to the violence against Israeli civilians and military forces by Palestinian militants as terrorism. The motivations behind Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians are many, and not all violent Palestinian groups agree with each other on specifics. Nonetheless, a common motive is the desire to destroy Israel and replace it with a Palestinian Arab state.[170] The most prominent Islamist groups, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, view the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a religious jihad.[171] Suicide bombings have been used as a tactic among Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and certain suicide attacks have received support among Palestinians as high as 84%.[172][173] In Israel, Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted civilian buses, restaurants, shopping malls, hotels and marketplaces.[174] From 1993 to 2003, 303 Palestinian suicide bombers attacked Israel. The Israeli government initiated the construction of a security barrier following scores of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks in July 2003. Israel's coalition government approved the security barrier in the northern part of the green line between Israel and the West Bank. According to the IDF, since the erection of the fence, terrorist acts have declined by approximately 90%.[175] Since 2001, the threat of Qassam rockets fired from Palestinian territories into Israel continues to be of great concern for Israeli defense officials.[176] In 2006—the year following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip—the Israeli government claimed to have recorded 1,726 such launches, more than four times the total rockets fired in 2005.[168][177] As of January 2009, over 8,600 rockets have been launched,[178][179] causing widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.[180] Over 500 rockets and mortars hit Israel in January–September 2010 and over 1,947 rockets hit Israel in January–November 2012. According to a study conducted by University of Haifa, one in five Israelis have lost a relative or friend in a Palestinian terrorist attack.[181] There is significant debate within Israel about how to deal with the country's security concerns. Options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of terrorist operatives), diplomacy, unilateral gestures toward peace, and increased security measures such as checkpoints, roadblocks and security barriers. The legality and the wisdom of all of the above tactics have been called into question by various commentators.[14][unreliable source?] Since mid-June 2007, Israel's primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with and permit United States-sponsored training, equipping, and funding of the Palestinian Authority's security forces, which with Israeli help have largely succeeded in quelling West Bank supporters of Hamas.[182] Palestinian violence outside of Israel Some Palestinians have committed violent acts over the globe on the pretext of a struggle against Israel.[183][184] During the late 1960s, the PLO became increasingly infamous for its use of international terror. In 1969 alone, the PLO was responsible for hijacking 82 planes. El Al Airlines became a regular hijacking target.[185][186] The hijacking of Air France Flight 139 by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine culminated during a hostage-rescue mission, where Israeli special forces successfully rescued the majority of the hostages. However, one of the most well-known and notorious terrorist acts was the capture and eventual murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games.[187] Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence A demonstration in support of Fatah in Gaza City in January 2013 Fighting among rival Palestinian and Arab movements has played a crucial role in shaping Israel's security policy towards Palestinian militants, as well as in the Palestinian leadership's own policies.[citation needed] As early as the 1930s revolts in Palestine, Arab forces fought each other while also skirmishing with Zionist and British forces, and internal conflicts continue to the present day. During the Lebanese Civil War, Palestinian baathists broke from the Palestine Liberation Organization and allied with the Shia Amal Movement, fighting a bloody civil war that killed thousands of Palestinians.[188][189] In the First Intifada, more than a thousand Palestinians were killed in a campaign initiated by the Palestine Liberation Organization to crack down on suspected Israeli security service informers and collaborators. The Palestinian Authority was strongly criticized for its treatment of alleged collaborators, rights groups complaining that those labeled collaborators were denied fair trials. According to a report released by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, less than 45 percent of those killed were actually guilty of informing for Israel.[190] In the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials have tortured and killed thousands of Fatah members and other Palestinians who oppose their rule. During the Battle of Gaza, more than 150 Palestinians died over a four-day period.[191] The violence among Palestinians was described as a civil war by some commentators. By 2007, more than 600 Palestinian people had died during the struggle between Hamas and Fatah.[192] Overriding authority and international status This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Area C, controlled by Israel under Oslo Accords, in blue and red, in December 2011 As far as Israel is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority is derived from the Oslo Accords, signed with the PLO, under which it acquired control over cities in the Palestinian territories (Area A) while the surrounding countryside came either under Israeli security and Palestinian civil administration (Area B) or complete Israeli civil administration (Area C). Israel has built additional highways to allow Israelis to traverse the area without entering Palestinian cities in Area A. The initial areas under Palestinian Authority control are diverse and non-contiguous. The areas have changed over time by subsequent negotiations, including Oslo II, Wye River and Sharm el-Sheik. According to Palestinians, the separated areas make it impossible to create a viable nation and fails to address Palestinian security needs; Israel has expressed no agreement to withdrawal from some Areas B, resulting in no reduction in the division of the Palestinian areas, and the institution of a safe pass system, without Israeli checkpoints, between these parts. Under the Oslo Accords, as a security measure, Israel has insisted on its control over all land, sea and air border crossings into the Palestinian territories, and the right to set import and export controls. This is to enable Israel to control the entry into the territories of materials of military significance and of potentially dangerous persons. The PLO's objective for international recognition of the State of Palestine is considered by Israel as a provocative "unilateral" act that is inconsistent with the Oslo Accords. Water resources Further information: Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories and Water politics in the Jordan River basin In the Middle East, water resources are of great political concern. Since Israel receives much of its water from two large underground aquifers which continue under the Green Line, the use of this water has been contentious in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Israel withdraws most water from these areas, but it also supplies the West Bank with approximately 40 million cubic metres annually, contributing to 77% of Palestinians' water supply in the West Bank, which is to be shared for a population of about 2.6 million.[193] Palestinian villagers purchase water from water trucks in Khirbet A-Duqaiqah in the Hebron Hills A swimming pool in the Israeli settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, West Bank While Israel's consumption of this water has decreased since it began its occupation of the West Bank, it still consumes the majority of it: in the 1950s, Israel consumed 95% of the water output of the Western Aquifer, and 82% of that produced by the Northeastern Aquifer. Although this water was drawn entirely on Israel's own side of the pre-1967 border, the sources of the water are nevertheless from the shared groundwater basins located under both West Bank and Israel.[194] In the Oslo II Accord, both sides agreed to maintain "existing quantities of utilization from the resources." In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank, subject to a Joint Water Committee (JWC). Moreover, Israel obligated itself in this agreement to provide water to supplement Palestinian production, and further agreed to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer, also subject to the Joint Water Committee.[195][196] The water that Israel receives comes mainly from the Jordan River system, the Sea of Galilee and two underground sources. According to a 2003 BBC article the Palestinians lack access to the Jordan River system.[197] According to a report of 2008 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor. Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians were not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[198] A report was released by the UN in August 2012 and Max Gaylard, the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in the occupied Palestinian territory, explained at the launch of the publication: "Gaza will have half a million more people by 2020 while its economy will grow only slowly. In consequence, the people of Gaza will have an even harder time getting enough drinking water and electricity, or sending their children to school". Gaylard present alongside Jean Gough, of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), and Robert Turner, of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The report projects that Gaza's population will increase from 1.6 million people to 2.1 million people in 2020, leading to a density of more than 5,800 people per square kilometre.[199] Future and financing Numerous foreign nations and international organizations have established bilateral agreements with the Palestinian and Israeli water authorities. It was estimated that a future investment of about US$1.1bn for the West Bank and $0.8bn for the Gaza Strip Southern Governorates was needed for the planning period from 2003 to 2015.[200] In late 2012, a donation of $21.6 million was announced by the Government of the Netherlands—the Dutch government stated that the funds would be provided to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), for the specific benefit of Palestinian children. An article, published by the UN News website, stated that: "Of the $21.6 million, $5.7 will be allocated to UNRWA's 2012 Emergency Appeal for the occupied Palestinian territory, which will support programmes in the West Bank and Gaza aiming to mitigate the effects on refugees of the deteriorating situation they face."[199] Israeli occupation of the West Bank See also: Israeli-occupied territories, West Bank § Status, Positions on Jerusalem, and Status of territories captured by Israel Protest against land confiscation held at Bil'in, 2011 Occupied Palestinian Territory is the term used by the United Nations to refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—territories which were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, having formerly been controlled by Egypt and Jordan.[201] In 1980, Israel annexed East Jerusalem.[202] Israel has never annexed the West Bank, apart from East Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip, and the United Nations has demanded the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" and that Israeli forces withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" – the meaning and intent of the latter phrase is disputed. See Interpretations. It has been the position of Israel that the most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), as well as the entire Gaza Strip, must eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State; however, the precise borders of this state are in question. At Camp David, for example, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat an opportunity to establish a non-militarized Palestinian State. The proposed state would consist of 77% of the West Bank split into two or three areas, followed by: an increase of 86–91% of the West Bank after six to twenty-one years; autonomy, but not sovereignty for some of the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem surrounded by Israeli territory; the entire Gaza Strip; and the dismantling of most settlements.[55] Arafat rejected the proposal without providing a counter-offer. A subsequent settlement proposed by President Clinton offered Palestinian sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank but was similarly rejected with 52 objections.[54][203][204][12] The Arab League has agreed to the principle of minor and mutually agreed land-swaps as part of a negotiated two state settlement based in June 1967 borders.[205] Official U.S. policy also reflects the ideal of using the 1967 borders as a basis for an eventual peace agreement.[206][207] Some Palestinians say they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Israel says it is justified in not ceding all this land, because of security concerns, and also because the lack of any valid diplomatic agreement at the time means that ownership and boundaries of this land is open for discussion.[208] Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any moves to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute and feels the purpose of negotiations is to define what the final borders will be. In 2017 Hamas announced that it was ready to support a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders "without recognising Israel or ceding any rights".[209] Hamas has previously viewed the peace process "as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".[171] Israeli settlements Main article: Israeli settlement A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to the Ariel University According to the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA), "In the years following the Six-Day War, and especially in the 1990s during the peace process, Israel re-established communities destroyed in 1929 and 1948 as well as established numerous new settlements in the West Bank."[210] These settlements were, as of 2009, home to about 301,000 people.[211] DEMA added, "Most of the settlements are in the western parts of the West Bank, while others are deep into Palestinian territory, overlooking Palestinian cities. These settlements have been the site of much inter-communal conflict."[210] The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip, have been described by the UK[212] and the WEU[213] as an obstacle to the peace process. The United Nations and the European Union have also called the settlements "illegal under international law."[214][215] However, Israel disputes this;[216] several scholars and commentators disagree with the assessment that settlements are illegal, citing in 2005 recent historical trends to back up their argument.[217][218] Those who justify the legality of the settlements use arguments based upon Articles 2 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 242.[219][better source needed] On a practical level, some objections voiced by Palestinians are that settlements divert resources needed by Palestinian towns, such as arable land, water, and other resources; and, that settlements reduce Palestinians' ability to travel freely via local roads, owing to security considerations.[citation needed] Former US President George W. Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the 1949 armistice lines because of "new realities on the ground".[220] One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country.[citation needed] The Obama administration viewed a complete freeze of construction in settlements on the West Bank as a critical step toward peace. In May and June 2009, President Barack Obama said, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements",[221] and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated that the President "wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions."[222] However, Obama has since declared that the United States will no longer press Israel to stop West Bank settlement construction as a precondition for continued peace-process negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.[223] As of 2023, there were about 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, with another 200,000 living in East Jerusalem.[224][225][226] In February 2023, Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich took charge of most of the Civil Administration, obtaining broad authority over civilian issues in the West Bank.[227][228] In the first six months of 2023, 13,000 housing units were built in settlements, which is almost three times more than in the whole of 2022.[229] Blockade of the Gaza Strip Main article: Blockade of the Gaza Strip Israel's attack on Gaza in 2009 The Israeli government states it is justified under international law to impose a blockade on an enemy for security reasons. The power to impose a naval blockade is established under customary international law and Laws of armed conflict, and a United Nations commission has ruled that Israel's blockade is "both legal and appropriate."[230][231] The Israeli Government's continued land, sea and air blockage is tantamount to collective punishment of the population, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.[232] The Military Advocate General of Israel has provided numerous reasonings for the policy: The State of Israel has been engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza strip. This armed conflict has intensified after Hamas violently took over Gaza, in June 2007, and turned the territory under its de facto control into a launching pad of mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli towns and villages in southern Israel.[233] According to Oxfam, because of an import-export ban imposed on Gaza in 2007, 95% of Gaza's industrial operations were suspended. Out of 35,000 people employed by 3,900 factories in June 2005, only 1,750 people remained employed by 195 factories in June 2007.[234] By 2010, Gaza's unemployment rate had risen to 40% with 80% of the population living on less than 2 dollars a day.[235] Rocket attacks fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, 2001-2021[236] In January 2008, the Israeli government calculated how many calories per person were needed to prevent a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip, and then subtracted eight percent to adjust for the "culture and experience" of the Gazans. Details of the calculations were released following Israeli human rights organization Gisha's application to the high court. Israel's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, who drafted the plan, stated that the scheme was never formally adopted, this was not accepted by Gisha.[237][238][239] Starting in February 2008, the Israeli Government reduced the electricity it sells directly to Gaza. This follows the ruling of Israel's High Court of Justice's decision, which held, with respect to the amount of industrial fuel supplied to Gaza, that, "The clarification that we made indicates that the supply of industrial diesel fuel to the Gaza Strip in the winter months of last year was comparable to the amount that the Respondents now undertake to allow into the Gaza Strip. This fact also indicates that the amount is reasonable and sufficient to meet the vital humanitarian needs in the Gaza Strip." Palestinian militants killed two Israelis in the process of delivering fuel to the Nahal Oz fuel depot.[240] With regard to Israel's plan, the Court stated that, "calls for a reduction of five percent of the power supply in three of the ten power lines that supply electricity from Israel to the Gaza Strip, to a level of 13.5 megawatts in two of the lines and 12.5 megawatts in the third line, we [the Court] were convinced that this reduction does not breach the humanitarian obligations imposed on the State of Israel in the framework of the armed conflict being waged between it and the Hamas organization that controls the Gaza Strip. Our conclusion is based, in part, on the affidavit of the Respondents indicating that the relevant Palestinian officials stated that they can reduce the load in the event limitations are placed on the power lines, and that they had used this capability in the past." On 20 June 2010, Israel's Security Cabinet approved a new system governing the blockade that would allow practically all non-military or dual-use items to enter the Gaza strip. According to a cabinet statement, Israel would "expand the transfer of construction materials designated for projects that have been approved by the Palestinian Authority, including schools, health institutions, water, sanitation and more – as well as (projects) that are under international supervision."[241] Despite the easing of the land blockade, Israel will continue to inspect all goods bound for Gaza by sea at the port of Ashdod.[242] Prior to a Gaza visit, scheduled for April 2013, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explained to Turkish newspaper Hürriyet that the fulfilment of three conditions by Israel was necessary for friendly relations to resume between Turkey and Israel: an apology for the May 2010 Gaza flotilla raid (Prime Minister Netanyahu had delivered an apology to Erdogan by telephone on 22 March 2013), the awarding of compensation to the families affected by the raid, and the lifting of the Gaza blockade by Israel. The Turkish prime minister also explained in the Hürriyet interview, in relation to the April 2013 Gaza visit, "We will monitor the situation to see if the promises are kept or not."[243] At the same time, Netanyahu affirmed that Israel would only consider exploring the removal of the Gaza blockade if peace ("quiet") is achieved in the area.[244] On 9 October 2023, Israel declared war on Hamas and imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip.[245] The blockade was announced by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who declared: "There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly."[246][247] Agricultural rights See also: Economy of the State of Palestine § Israeli–Palestinian relations Since the beginning of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the conflict has been about land.[248] When Israel became a state after the war in 1948, 77% of Palestine's land was used for the creation on the state.[249] The majority of those living in Palestine at the time became refugees in other countries and this first land crisis became the root of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[250] Because the root of the conflict is with land, the disputes between Israel and Palestine are well-manifested in the agriculture of Palestine. In Palestine, agriculture is a mainstay in the economy. The production of agricultural goods supports the population's sustenance needs and fuels Palestine's export economy.[251] According to the Council for European Palestinian Relations, the agricultural sector formally employs 13.4% of the population and informally employs 90% of the population.[251] Over the past 10 years[when?], unemployment rates in Palestine have increased and the agricultural sector became the most impoverished sector in Palestine. Unemployment rates peaked in 2008 when they reached 41% in Gaza.[252] Palestinian agriculture suffers from numerous problems including Israeli military and civilian attacks on farms and farmers, blockades to exportation of produce and importation of necessary inputs, widespread confiscation of land for nature reserves as well as military and settler use, confiscation and destruction of wells, and physical barriers within the West Bank.[253] Israel's West Bank barrier The barrier between Israel and Palestine With the construction of the separation barrier, the Israeli state promised free movement across regions. However, border closures, curfews, and checkpoints has significantly restricted Palestinian movement.[254] In 2012, there were 99 fixed check points and 310 flying checkpoints.[255] The border restrictions impacted the imports and exports in Palestine and weakened the industrial and agricultural sectors because of the constant Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza.[256] In order for the Palestinian economy to be prosperous, the restrictions on Palestinian land must be removed.[253] According to The Guardian and a report for World Bank, the Palestinian economy lost $3.4bn (%35 of the annual GDP) to Israeli restrictions in the West Bank alone.[257] Economic disputes and boycotts See also: Economy of the Palestinian territories and Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions In Gaza, the agricultural market suffers from economic boycotts and border closures and restrictions placed by Israel.[258] The PA's Minister of Agriculture estimates that around US$1.2 billion were lost in September 2006 because of these security measures. There has also been an economic embargo initiated by the west on Hamas-led Palestine, which has decreased the amount of imports and exports from Palestine.[citation needed] This embargo was brought on by Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to statehood.[citation needed] As a result, the PA's 160,000 employees have not received their salaries in over one year.[259] Actions toward stabilizing the conflict In response to a weakening trend in Palestinian violence and growing economic and security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli military removed over 120 check points in 2010 and planned on disengaging from major Palestinian population areas. According to the IDF, terrorist activity in the West Bank decreased by 97% compared to violence in 2002.[260] PA–Israel efforts in the West Bank have "significantly increased investor confidence", and the Palestinian economy grew 6.8% in 2009.[261][262][263][264] Bank of Palestine Since the Second Intifada, Israel has banned Jewish Israelis from entering Palestinian cities. However, Israeli Arabs are allowed to enter West Bank cities on weekends. The Palestinian Authority has petitioned the Israeli military to allow Jewish tourists to visit West Bank cities as "part of an effort" to improve the Palestinian economy. Israeli general Avi Mizrahi spoke with Palestinian security officers while touring malls and soccer fields in the West Bank. Mizrahi gave permission to allow Israeli tour guides into Bethlehem, a move intended to "contribute to the Palestinian and Israeli economies."[265] Mutual recognition Main article: Israel–PLO Letters of Mutual Recognition Between Israel and the PLO Beginning in 1993 with the Oslo peace process, Israel recognizes "the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people", though Israel does not recognize the State of Palestine.[266] In return, it was agreed that Palestinians would promote peaceful co-existence, renounce violence and promote recognition of Israel among their own people. Despite Yasser Arafat's official renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel, some Palestinian groups continue to practice and advocate violence against civilians and do not recognize Israel as a legitimate political entity.[26][267][unreliable source?] Palestinians state that their ability to spread acceptance of Israel was greatly hampered by Israeli restrictions on Palestinian political freedoms, economic freedoms, civil liberties, and quality of life. Of Israel as a Jewish state The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has in recent years refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, citing concerns for Israeli Arabs and a possible future right to return for Palestinian refugees, though Palestine continues to recognize Israel as a state.[268][269] This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2023) The leader of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which is Fatah's official military wing, has stated that any peace agreement must include the right of return of Palestinian refugees into lands now part of Israel, which some Israeli commenters view as "destroying the Jewish state".[270] In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. Hamas' charter openly states they seek Israel's destruction, though Hamas leaders have spoken of long-term truces with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory.[267][271] Palestinian government Palestinian enclaves in May 2023 (Area A and B under the Oslo II Accord). Area A (light yellow) is exclusively administered by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority is considered corrupt by a wide variety of sources, including some Palestinians.[272][273][274] Some Israelis argue that it provides tacit support for militants via its relationship with Hamas and other Islamic militant movements, and that therefore it is unsuitable for governing any putative Palestinian state or (especially according to the right wing of Israeli politics), even negotiating about the character of such a state.[208] Because of that, a number of organizations, including the previously ruling Likud party, declared they would not accept a Palestinian state based on the current PA. Palestinian security apparatus Starting in 2006, the United States began training, equipping, and funding the Palestinian Authority's security forces, which had been cooperating with Israel at unprecedented levels in the West Bank to quell supporters of Hamas.[182] The US government has spent over $500 million building and training the Palestinian National Security Forces and Presidential Guard.[182] The IDF maintains that the US-trained forces will soon be capable of "overrunning small IDF outposts and isolated Israeli communities" in the event of a conflict.[275] Views on dialogue versus violence Societal attitudes in both Israel and Palestine are a source of concern to those promoting dispute resolution. According to a June 2022 poll carried out by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research that asked Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem, "which of the following means is the most effective means of ending the Israeli occupation and building an independent state", 50% supported "armed struggle", 22% favored negotiations until an agreement could be reached, and 21% supported non-violent popular resistance.[18] 59% of respondents cite the armed attack inside Israel carried out by Palestinians unaffiliated with known armed groups as contributing to ending the occupation; 37% disagree. Residents of the Gaza Strip, youth, students, low-income workers, public sector employees, and Hamas supporters are more likely to believe that armed attacks contribute to the national interest.[18] An unconditional resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is opposed by 69% of Palestinians and supported by 22%. A return to dialogue with the new US administration under Joe Biden is opposed by 65% of Palestinians, while 29% are in favor.[18] Fatalities See also: Israeli casualties of war and Palestinian casualties of war A variety of studies provide aggregated casualty data for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 13,000 Israelis and Palestinians were killed in conflict with each other between 1948 and 1997.[276] Other estimations give 14,500 killed between 1948 and 2009.[276][277] Palestinian fatalities during the 1982 Lebanon War were 2,000 PLO combatants killed in armed conflict with Israel.[278] According to B'tselem, during the first intifada from 1987 until 2000, 1,551 Palestinians and 421 Israelis lost their lives.[279] According to the database of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHAoPt), 6,407 Palestinians and 308 Israelis were killed in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict from 2008 to September 2023, before the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.[280][281] Israeli and Palestinian deaths preceding the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Of the Palestinian deaths 5,360 were in Gaza, 1,007 in the West Bank, 37 in Israel. Most were civilians on both sides.[280][281]    Bar chart showing Israeli and Palestinian deaths from September 2000 to July 2014 Demographic percentages for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict according to Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs from September 2000 until the end of July 2007.[282] Belligerent Combatant Civilian Male Female Children Children male Children female Palestinian 41% 59% 94% 6% 20% 87% 13% Israeli 31% 69% 69% 31% 12% Not available Not available Partial casualty figures for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict from the OCHAoPt[283] (numbers in parentheses represent casualties under age 18) Year Deaths Injuries Palestinians Israelis Palestinians Israelis 2008[284] 464 (87) 31 (4) 2007 396 (43) 13 (0) 1,843 (265) 322 (3) 2006 678 (127) 25 (2) 3,194 (470) 377 (7) 2005 216 (52) 48 (6) 1,260 (129) 484 (4) Total 1,754 (309) 117 (12) 6,297 (864) 1,183 (14) Figures include both Israeli civilians and security forces casualties in West Bank, Gaza and Israel. All numbers refer to casualties of direct conflict between Israelis and Palestinians including in IDF military operations, artillery shelling, search and arrest campaigns, barrier demonstrations, targeted killings, settler violence etc. The figures do not include events indirectly related to the conflict such as casualties from unexploded ordnance, etc., or events when the circumstances remain unclear or are in dispute. The figures include all reported casualties of all ages and both genders.[283] Criticism of casualty statistics As reported by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, since 29 September 2000 a total of 7,454 Palestinian and Israeli individuals were killed due to the conflict. According to the report, 1,317 of the 6,371 Palestinians were minors, and at least 2,996 did not participate in fighting at the time of death. Palestinians killed 1,083 Israelis, including 741 civilians, of whom 124 were minors.[285] The Israeli-based International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism criticized the methodology of Israeli and Palestinian rights groups, including B'Tselem, and questioned their accuracy in classifying civilian/combatant ratios.[286][287] Landmines and unexploded ordnance A comprehensive collection mechanism to gather land mine and explosive remnants of war (ERW) casualty data does not exist for the Palestinian territories.[288] In 2009, the United Nations Mine Action Centre reported that more than 2,500 mine and explosive remnants of war casualties occurred between 1967 and 1998, at least 794 casualties (127 killed, 654 injured and 13 unknown) occurred between 1999 and 2008 and that 12 people had been killed and 27 injured since the Gaza War.[288] The UN Mine Action Centre identified the main risks as coming from "ERW left behind by Israeli aerial and artillery weapon systems, or from militant caches targeted by the Israeli forces."[288] There are at least 15 confirmed minefields in the West Bank on the border with Jordan. The Palestinian National Security Forces do not have maps or records of the minefields.[288] See also flag Israel portal flag Palestine portal Palestinian genocide accusation Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Outline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis Allon Plan, post-1967 peace plan Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Allegations of war crimes against Israel Gaza–Israel conflict History of the State of Palestine International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict Israel–Palestine relations Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions Israeli–Lebanese conflict Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron List of Middle East peace proposals List of modern conflicts in the Middle East OneVoice Movement Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel Pan-Arabism Peace Now Seeds of Peace Notes Explanatory notes  Three factors made Israel's territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 km2 near Latrun), post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 km2), and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 km2), which reduces the total to 5,538 km2. Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 km2 of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective. Jeremy Pressman, International Security, vol 28, no. 2, Fall 2003, "Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. On [1] Archived 22 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. See pp. 16–17 References  "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Overview Map | December 2011". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 25 January 2012. Archived from the original on 11 November 2023. Retrieved 11 November 2023.  Monty G. Marshall. Major Episodes of Political Violence 1946–2012. SystemicPeace.org. "Ethnic War with Arab Palestinians / PLO 1965–2013". Updated 12 June 2013 "CSP - Major Episodes of Political Violence, 1946-2012". Archived from the original on 21 January 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2013.  "A History of Conflict: Introduction". A History of Conflict. BBC News. Archived from the original on 20 April 2011. Retrieved 17 December 2008.  Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, p. 121.  Chris Rice Archived 6 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, quoted in Munayer Salim J, Loden Lisa, Through My Enemy's Eyes: Envisioning Reconciliation in Israel-Palestine, quote: "The Palestinian-Israeli divide may be the most intractable conflict of our time."  Virginia Page Fortna Archived 31 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Peace Time: Cease-fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace, page 67, "Britain's contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews during World War I sowed the seeds of what would become the international community's most intractable conflict later in the century."  Falk, Avner (17 February 2005). Fratricide in the Holy Land: A Psychoanalytic View of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Terrace Books. ISBN 978-0-299-20253-8.  "The Roots of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 1882–1914". Archived from the original on 23 August 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2017.  The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (26 October 2020). "Balfour Declaration | History & Impact". Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on 4 May 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2021.  "Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Government of Canada. Archived from the original on 18 February 2018. Retrieved 13 March 2010.  "Movement and Access Restrictions in the West Bank: Uncertainty and Inefficiency in the Palestinian Economy" (PDF). World Bank. 9 May 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 April 2010. Retrieved 29 March 2010. Currently, freedom of movement and access for Palestinians within the West Bank is the exception rather than the norm contrary to the commitments undertaken in a number of Agreements between GOI and the PA. In particular, both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map were based on the principle that normal Palestinian economic and social life would be unimpeded by restrictions  "Archives". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 31 December 2021. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Grinberg, Lev Luis (10 September 2009). Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine: Democracy Versus Military Rule. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-27589-1.  Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Peace: How the Arab–Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005  Kurtzer, Daniel; Lasensky, Scott; Organization (2008). Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East. United States Institute of Peace Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-60127-030-6.  Dr. William Cubbison (2018). "Two States for Two People? A Long Decline in Support". The Israel Democracy Institute. Archived from the original on 1 August 2022. Retrieved 1 August 2022.  Lazaroff, Tovah (4 August 2021). "With only 40% support, Israelis still think 2 states best option - poll". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 1 August 2022. Retrieved 1 August 2022.  "Public Opinion Poll No (84)". pcpsr.org. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. 6 July 2022. Archived from the original on 2 August 2022. Retrieved 2 August 2022.  "On the Eve of the Jewish New Year: How Optimistic Are Israelis and What Are Their Opinions on Iran and the Two-State Solution?". en.idi.org.il (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on 1 January 2023. Retrieved 19 January 2023.  "Israeli poll finds majority would be in favour of 'apartheid' policies". the Guardian. 23 October 2012. Archived from the original on 4 January 2023. Retrieved 19 January 2023.  Yaar, Ephraim; Hermann, Tamar (11 December 2007). "Just Another Forgotten Peace Summit". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 17 August 2023. The source of the Jewish public's skepticism – and even pessimism – is apparently the widespread belief that a peace agreement based on the 'two states for two peoples' formula would not lead the Palestinians to end their conflict with Israel.  "Young Palestinians in Gaza cannot find work and cannot leave". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 1 August 2022. Retrieved 1 August 2022.  "What does the Middle East offer America?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 1 August 2022. Retrieved 1 August 2022.  Carrie Keller-Lynn (20 June 2022). "Bennett announces coalition's demise, new elections: 'We did our utmost to continue'". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 28 September 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.  Sufian, Sandy (1 January 2008). "Anatomy of the 1936–39 Revolt: Images of the Body in Political Cartoons of Mandatory Palestine". Journal of Palestine Studies. University of California Press. 37 (2): 23–42. doi:10.1525/jps.2008.37.2.23. eISSN 1533-8614. ISSN 0377-919X. JSTOR 10.1525/jps.2008.37.2.23. S2CID 154107901. Archived from the original on 20 June 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2008.  Sela 2002, pp. 58–121, "Arab-Israel Conflict"  Gelvin, James (2014) [2002]. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (3 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85289-0. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 9 November 2020.  "History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (PDF). PBS. December 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2013.  Sela, Avraham, ed. (2002). "Palestine Arabs". The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. New York: Continuum. pp. 664–673. ISBN 978-0-8264-1413-7.  Sela 2002, p. 361, "al-Husseini, Hajj (Muhammad) Amin" He [Husseini] incited and headed anti-Jewish riots in April 1920. ... He promoted the Muslim character of Jerusalem and ... injected a religious character into the struggle against Zionism. This was the backdrop to his agitation concerning Jewish rights at the Western (Wailing) Wall that led to the bloody riots of August 1929...[H]e was the chief organizer of the riots of 1936 and the rebellion from 1937, as well as of the mounting internal terror against Arab opponents.  Louis, William Roger (2006). Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. I.B. Tauris. p. 391. ISBN 978-1-84511-347-6.  Morris, Benny (2009). One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict. Yale University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-300-15604-1. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 27 September 2020.  Morris, Benny (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-521-00967-6.  "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. Archived from the original on 24 May 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2013.  Baum, Noa. "Historical Time Line for Israel/Palestine." Archived 19 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine UMass Amherst. 5 April 2005. 14 March 2013.  Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 79.  Levs, Josh (6 January 2009). "Is Gaza 'occupied' territory?". CNN. Archived from the original on 21 January 2009. Retrieved 30 May 2009.  "Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability". Amnesty International. 19 January 2009. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 5 June 2009.  "Human Rights Council Special Session on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, July 6, 2006". Human Rights Watch. 5 July 2006. Archived from the original on 4 January 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Erlanger, Steven (18 February 2006). "Hamas Leader Faults Israeli Sanction Plan". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Oren, Michael B. (2007). Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 607. ISBN 978-0-393-05826-0.  Bohn, Lauren E. "Hamas: Rockets will stop when Gaza borders are opened". USA Today. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Abbas: No justification for Gaza rocket attacks". The Jerusalem Post. 2 November 2012. Archived from the original on 16 March 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2013.  "Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians". Human Rights Watch. 24 December 2012. Archived from the original on 28 November 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Seven Truths About Israel, Hamas and Violence". Bloomberg.com. 20 November 2012. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  "In Israel and the U.S., 'apartheid' is the elephant in the room". Washington Post.  "Israeli-Palestinian death toll highest since 2005: UN envoy". UN. 21 August 2023. Archived from the original on 23 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023.  Agha, Hussein; Malley, Robert. "Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 6 September 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Propositions israéliennes, de Camp David (2000) à Taba (2001)". Le Monde diplomatique (in French). 1 September 2001. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Agha, Hussein; Malley, Robert. "Camp David and After: An Exchange (2. A Reply to Ehud Barak)". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Barak, Ehud; Morris, Benny; Agha, Hussein; Malley, Robert. "Camp David and After—Continued". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Karsh, Efraim. Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest. New York: Grove Press, 2003. p. 168. "Arafat rejected the proposal" (emphasis added).  Morris, Benny. "Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak)". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Robert Malley and Hussein Agha (9 August 2001). "Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors". New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 6 September 2018. Retrieved 5 September 2018.  Jeremy Pressman, International Security, vol 28, no. 2, Fall 2003, "Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. On [2] Archived 22 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. See pp. 7, 15–19  Shamir, Shimon (2005). The Camp David Summit—what Went Wrong?: Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians Analyze the Failure of the Boldest Attempt Ever to Resolve the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-099-6. Archived from the original on 21 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  Wright, Robert (18 April 2002). "Was Arafat the problem?". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Bennet, James. "Clinton criticizes Arafat actions." Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine Chicago Tribune. 21 January 2002. 14 January 2012. "'Chairman Arafat missed a golden opportunity,' [President Bill] Clinton said in a speech Sunday night, referring to Arafat's rejection of a peace proposal made at Camp David in 2000" (emphasis added).  Rubin, Barry M.; Rubin, Judith Colp (2008). Chronologies of Modern Terrorism. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-2206-8. Archived from the original on 21 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  Rabinovich, Itamar (11 November 2011). The Lingering Conflict: Israel, the Arabs, and the Middle East, 1948 2011. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-2229-8. Archived from the original on 21 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  Pressman, Jeremy (Fall 2003). "Visions in Collision – What Happened at Camp David and Taba". International Security. 28 (2): 6. doi:10.1162/016228803322761955. S2CID 57564925.  "End of a Journey". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Ben Ami, Shlomo. "Fmr. Israeli Foreign Minister: "If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David"". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on 21 June 2014. Retrieved 24 June 2014.  "Clinton: Arafat changed mind on peace deal". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Altman, Alex (22 January 2009). "Middle East Envoy George Mitchell". Time. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.  "Excerpts: State Dept; Spokesman on Mideast Peace Prospects (Both sides accept Clinton's parameters with reservations)". Embassy of the United States, Israel. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 3 June 2012.  Wren, Christopher (3 January 2001). "Renewed Hope for Peace Talks as Arafat Returns to Mideast". New York Times. Archived from the original on 20 September 2012. Retrieved 3 June 2012.  Levinson, Chaim (9 November 2015). "Israel moves to green light 2,200 new settlement units, recognizes outposts". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 30 November 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.  "UN: Israeli-Palestinian violence nears 'catastrophe'". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.  "Mapping the dead in latest Israeli-Palestinian violence". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 29 November 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.  "Saudi Prince al-Faisal tells Haaretz: Desire for peace exists both in Gaza and Ramallah – Israel Conference on Peace TLV". Haaretz. 12 November 2015. Archived from the original on 3 December 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2015.  "The Saudi Arabia peace initiative". Ynetnews. 23 March 2009. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Support for the Saudi Initiative". The New York Times. 28 February 2002. Archived from the original on 11 November 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2016.  Stern, Yoav (November 22, 2008). "Abbas calls on Obama to enact Arab peace plan as soon as he takes office" Archived 25 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Haaretz. Associated Press.  "Hamas' al-Zahar: Arab peace initiative impractical" Archived 20 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Ynet News. Associated Press. June 1, 2006.  Time to Test the Arab Peace Offer. By Scott MacLeod. Time. January 8, 2009.  "Saudi former intel chief slams Palestinian's criticism of UAE-Israel deal". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 6 October 2020. Archived from the original on 6 October 2020. Retrieved 8 May 2023.  "Arabs offer Israel peace plan". BBC News. 28 March 2002. Archived from the original on 14 December 2006. Retrieved 17 April 2013.  Hoffman, Gil (4 March 2002). "Sharon warns Saudi plan may be Arab plot". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 3 February 2004. Retrieved 1 October 2011.  "Olmert gives cautious welcome to Arab peace plan". TheGuardian.com. 30 March 2007. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 8 May 2023.  "Netanyahu backs 'general idea' behind Arab Peace Initiative". Times of Israel. 28 May 2015. Archived from the original on 30 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2015.  "Netanyahu: Israel Will Never Accept Arab Peace Initiative as Basis for Talks With Palestinians". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 1 February 2023. Retrieved 8 May 2023.  Richard Horowitz (18 June 2013). "Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, on Israel's Legal Obligations". World Policy Review. Archived from the original on 4 September 2014. Retrieved 18 October 2014.  S. Daniel Abraham (8 March 2013). "Israel's Dreaded Tipping Point Has Finally Arrived". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 10 March 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013.  Holmes, Oliver (27 April 2021). "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, rights group says". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022.  Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity (PDF) (Report). Amnesty International. January 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2022. Retrieved 8 December 2022.  Harriet Sherwood (18 January 2012). "EU report calls for action over Israeli settlement growth". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 4 September 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2012.  See the following: Keinon, Herb. "Critical EU paper draws fire from Israeli officials". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 6 October 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012. Hass, Amira (1 December 2012). "EU report: Israel policy in West Bank endangers two-state solution". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 16 January 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012. Macintyre, Donald (1 December 2012). "EU on verge of abandoning hope for a viable Palestinian state". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012. "Western powers angered as Israel agrees settler homes". BBC. 27 September 2012. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012.  "Security Council members line up to criticize Israel". Jerusalem Post. 20 December 2011. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 12 February 2012.  "Israel condemned at UN over settlements". Al Jazeera. 22 December 2011. Archived from the original on 1 August 2018. Retrieved 12 February 2012.  "UN groupings criticise Israeli settlement activities". BBC. 20 December 2011. Archived from the original on 30 March 2019. Retrieved 20 December 2012.  Blomfield, Adrian (5 April 2012). "Israeli architect of Oslo accords says Middle East peace process is over". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 23 May 2012.  Ravid, Barak (14 May 2012). "EU: Israel's policies in the West Bank endanger two-state solution". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 8 April 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2012.  Ravid, Barack (11 April 2012). "Mideast Quartet criticizes Israeli settler violence, incitement in West Bank". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 17 May 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2012.  "PA welcomes South Africa settlements decision". Ma'an News Agency. 24 May 2012. Archived from the original on 21 October 2013. Retrieved 1 June 2012.  "Amnesty says some Israeli West Bank killings may be war crimes". Reuters. 27 February 2014. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories: Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank". Amnesty International. 27 February 2014. Archived from the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Gilead Sher, The Israeli–Palestinian Peace Negotiations, 1999–2001: Within Reach, Taylor & Francis, 2006 p. 19.  Sales, Ben. "Some experts question extent of Palestinian incitement". www.timesofisrael.com. Archived from the original on 12 February 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Jesper Svartvik, Jakob Wirén (eds.), Religious Stereotyping and Interreligious Relations, Palgrave Macmillan 2013, pp. 12, 222–224.  Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, Seven Stories Press, 2011 p. 107.  Sherwood, Harriet (6 August 2011). "Academic claims Israeli school textbooks contain bias - Israel". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.  Report on Palestinian Textbooks Archived 2 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine Georg Eckert Institute (2019-2021)  "EU holds PA funds after reform of antisemitic textbooks fails". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 13 July 2022. Retrieved 7 May 2022.  "EU moves to stop funding Palestinian terrorists, inciting textbooks". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 11 July 2022. Retrieved 8 May 2022.  Algemeiner, The. "UNRWA Head Faces Questions at EU Parliament Over 'Hate Speech, Violence' in Palestinian Textbooks". Algemeiner.com. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 8 May 2022.  Israeli, Raphael (14 August 2012). The Oslo Idea: The Euphoria of Failure. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-4653-0.  "PA TV glorifies murderers of Fogel family". Jerusalem Post. 30 January 2012. Archived from the original on 1 March 2012. Retrieved 28 March 2012.  "In Israel, an ugly tide sweeps over Palestinians". The National. 25 April 2016. Archived from the original on 19 May 2016. Retrieved 14 May 2016.  Cohen, Gili (22 April 2016). "Israeli Soldier Indicted for Shooting Wounded Palestinian Assailant Released for Passover". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 18 May 2016. Retrieved 14 May 2016.  "When Israelis Teach Their Kids To Hate". Forward. 8 May 2014. Archived from the original on 2 May 2016. Retrieved 14 May 2016.  "Gaza kindergartners want to 'blow up Zionists'". Ynet. Archived from the original on 13 July 2012. Retrieved 17 June 2012.  Staff writers (18 July 2011). "Israeli minister says Palestinians losing UN bid". Almasry Alyoum. Archived from the original on 10 December 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2011.  Ravid, Barak (28 August 2011). "UN envoy Prosor: Israel has no chance of stopping recognition of Palestinian state". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 31 August 2011. Retrieved 31 August 2011.  Benhorin, Yitzhak (13 September 2011). "US to 'adamantly object' PA's UN bid". ynetnetws.com. Archived from the original on 15 November 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2018.  Horn, Jordana. "Obama at UN declares 'no shortcuts' to peace". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 1 June 2015. Retrieved 24 June 2014.  Medzini, Ronen (18 September 2011). "Netanyahu: PA attempt to become a permanent UN member will fail". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 23 September 2011. Retrieved 18 September 2011.  McGreal, Chris (23 September 2011). "Abbas defies US with formal call for Palestinian recognition by UN". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 4 March 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2011.  "Security Council rejects Palestinian statehood resolution". CNN. 31 December 2014. Archived from the original on 15 November 2018. Retrieved 14 November 2018.  "Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state". Reuters. 29 November 2012. Archived from the original on 5 June 2014. Retrieved 29 November 2012.  Lidman, Melanie (28 December 2011). "Support growing for two-state solution". Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 3 September 2012. Retrieved 10 February 2012.  "The Current Situation: Current Situation: Israel, The Palestinian Territories, and The Region". United States Institute of Peace. 17 June 2021. Archived from the original on 6 January 2023. Retrieved 6 January 2023.  "Overview of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians". News Basics. Archived from the original on 24 April 2012. Retrieved 13 February 2012.  "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (Unofficial translation)" Archived 5 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine. www.knesset.gov.il. Passed by the Knesset on the 17th Av, 5740 (30 July 1980).  Diamond, Jeremy; Labott, Elise (6 December 2017). "Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital". CNN. Archived from the original on 26 January 2018. Retrieved 7 December 2017.  Ahren, Raphael (6 April 2017). "In curious twist, Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital". The Times of Israel. Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 22 September 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2017.  "UN security Council Resolution 478". unispal.un.org. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2017.  Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues" (PDF). The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2013. Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008–, print 2011).  Sela 2002, pp. 491–498, "Jerusalem"  Gold. The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007. pp. 5–6.  Golden, Jonathan (2004). "Targeting Heritage: The Abuse of Symbolic Sites in Modern Conflicts". In Rowan, Yorke M.; Baram, Uzi (eds.). Marketing heritage: archaeology and the consumption of the past. Rowman Altamira. pp. 183–202. ISBN 978-0-7591-0342-9. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 29 October 2015.  "Extremists – Talking With Jewish Extremists | Israel's Next War?". Frontline. PBS. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Peled, Alisa Rubin (2001). Debating Islam in the Jewish State: The Development of Policy toward Islamic Institutions in Israel. State University of New York Press. p. 96. OCLC 929622466. In general, Israeli policy towards holy places can be considered a success with regard to its primary goal: facilitating Israel's acceptance into the international community of nations. However, the repeated failure of the Muslim Affairs Department to fulfill its mandate of protecting the Muslim holy places in Israel has been a largely forgotten chapter in Israeli history that deserves reexamination  "Secret tunnel under Al-Aqsa Mosque exposed". Al Arabiya English. 27 March 2008. Archived from the original on 9 August 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Sela 2002, pp. 724–29, Efrat, Moshe. "Refugees."  Peters, Joel; Dajani Daoudi, Mohammed (2011). The Israel–Palestine Conflict Parallel discourses. Routledge. pp. 26, 37. ISBN 978-0-203-83939-3. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 12 November 2020.  "General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950". United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. 1950. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 20 November 2007.  "UNRWA". United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. Archived from the original on 7 January 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Black, Ian; Milne, Seumas (24 January 2011). "Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 9 September 2013. Retrieved 24 January 2011.  "Mahmoud Abbas: Right to return quote was 'personal view". Independent. 5 November 2012. Archived from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2013.  "Right of return: Palestinian dream?". 18 February 2003. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Flapan, Simha (Summer 1987). "The Palestinian Exodus of 1948". Journal of Palestine Studies. 16 (4): 3–26. doi:10.2307/2536718. JSTOR 2536718.  Khalidi, Rashid I. (Winter 1992). "Observations on the Right of Return". Journal of Palestine Studies. 21 (2): 29–40. doi:10.2307/2537217. JSTOR 2537217.  Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab conflict, 1881–2001 (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. pp. 252–258. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7.  Masalha, Nur (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948 (4. print. ed.). Washington, DC: Inst. for Palestine Studies. pp. 175. ISBN 978-0-88728-235-5.  Michael Mann (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge University Press. pp. 109, 519. ISBN 978-0-521-83130-7.  Benny Morris. "Arab-Israeli War". The Crimes of War Education Project. Archived from the original on 29 January 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2014.  Rosemarie Esber (2009). Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians. Arabicus Books & Media. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-9815131-3-3.  Pappé, Ilan (2007). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Repr. ed.). Oxford: Oneworld Publications. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-1-85168-467-0.  See for example, Masalha, Nur-eldeen (1988). "On Recent Hebrew and Israeli Sources for the Palestinian Exodus, 1947–49". Journal of Palestine Studies. 18 (1): 121–137. doi:10.2307/2537599. JSTOR 2537599. And Childers, Irskine (12 May 1961). "The Other Exodus". The Spectator. London.  Honig-Parnass, Tikva (2011). The False Prophets of Peace: Liberal Zionism and the Struggle for Palestine. Haymarket Books. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-60846-130-1. Makdisi rightly argues that almost every law of South African Apartheid has its equivalent in Israel today.18 A significant example is the Law of Return (1950), which even Kretzmer claims is explicitly discriminatory against Palestinian citizens.... The Law of Return, which determines the second-class citizenship of Palestinians, is recognized as a fundamental principle in Israel and "is possibly even its very raison d'etre as a Jewish state."19  Schmidt, Yvonne (2008). Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. GRIN Verlag oHG. pp. 245–246. ISBN 978-3-638-94450-2. In any case has the Law of Return, 1950 discriminatory effect for Palestinian Arab people since it allows any Jew to immigrate to Israel, while – at the same time – it deprives all native Palestinian Arab refugees residing outside the borders of the state of Israel of their fundamental right to return to their homes and villages from which they were expelled or took flight in the course of the 1948 war that broke out because of the establishment of Israel.  Kassim, Anis F. (2002). The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 2001–2002: Vol. 11. Brill. p. 150. ISBN 978-3-638-94450-2. Under the heading of "Discrimination", the Committee cited Israel's Law of Return as discriminatory against Palestinian refugees because of Israel's refusal to readmit them. The committee said: "The Committee notes with concern that the Law of Return which permits any Jew from anywhere in the world to immigrate and thereby virtually automatically enjoy residence and obtain citizenship in Israel, discriminates against Palestinians in the Diaspora upon whom the Government of Israel has imposed restrictive requirements that make it almost impossible to return to their land of birth."  "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. Archived from the original on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 19 October 2014.  "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations. Archived from the original on 20 October 2014. Retrieved 19 October 2014.  Radley, K. René (1978). "The Palestinian Refugees: The Right to Return in International Law". American Journal of International Law. 72 (3): 586–614. doi:10.2307/2200460. JSTOR 2200460. S2CID 147111254.  Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Issue: The Formulation of a Policy, 1948–1956 Front Cover Jacob Tovy Routledge, 5 Mar 2014  Miller, Elhanan (June 2012). "Palestinian Refugees and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations" (PDF). International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2016. To use a trite image, while UNHCR strives to give its refugees fishing rods, UNRWA is busy distributing fish  Morris, Benny (2001). Righteous victims : a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881–2001 (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. pp. 252–258. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7.  "Israel and the Palestinians". The Irish Times. 2 February 2008. Archived from the original on 21 October 2012. Retrieved 5 August 2012.  Shavit, Ari (8 January 2004). "Survival of the Fittest". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 30 October 2017. Retrieved 7 January 2015.  Finkelstein, Norman G. (2012). Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End. New York: OR Books. pp. Chapter 10. ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5.  "Israel and the Palestine right of return." Archived 6 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine World Association of International Studies. 8 April 2008.  Alwaya, Semha (6 March 2005). "The vanishing Jews of the Arab world / Baghdad native tells the story of being a Middle East refugee". SFGATE. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "The Case for Jewish Exiles". 21 February 2012. Archived from the original on 21 February 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Erlanger, Steven (31 March 2007). "Olmert Rejects Right of Return for Palestinians". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 22 March 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Karsh, Efraim (1 May 2001). "The Palestinians and the 'Right of Return'". Commentary. Vol. 111, no. 5. p. 25. Archived from the original on 13 January 2017. Retrieved 12 January 2017.  "Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000". Israeli Ministry of Internal Affairs. Archived from the original on 3 April 2007. Retrieved 10 April 2007.  "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006." Archived 28 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine Global Legal Information Network. 26 December 2006. 30 May 2009.  Sela 2002, pp. 822–36, "Terrorism"  Sela 2002, pp. 335–342, "Hamas" The PLO's agreement to support the participation of a Palestinian delegation from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Madrid Peace Conferences in late October 1991 further fueled the tension between Fatah and Hamas, which embarked on an intensive campaign against the very idea of territorial compromise and peacemaking with the Jews, as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable. (p. 339)  Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (27) Archived 3 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine, PSR – Survey Research Unit, 24 March 2008  Asser, Martin (28 June 2002). "Palestinian support for suicide bombers". BBC News. Archived from the original on 16 October 2002. Retrieved 28 June 2002.  "Analysis: Palestinian suicide attacks". 29 January 2007. Archived from the original on 15 January 2010. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "The Security Barrier (Fence)". IDF Military Advocate General. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2014.  Harel, Amos. "Defense officials concerned as Hamas upgrades Qassam arsenal." Haaretz. 7 December 2007. 30 March 2009.  Rockets from Gaza  "Q&A: Gaza conflict". 18 January 2009. Archived from the original on 5 July 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel". 21 January 2008. Archived from the original on 23 September 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Playing cat and mouse with Gaza rockets". 28 February 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Kober, Avi (2009). Israel's Wars of Attrition: Attrition Challenges to Democratic States. Routledge. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-415-49243-0. Archived from the original on 9 October 2023. Retrieved 12 November 2020.  Nathan Thrall (14 October 2010). "Our Man in Palestine". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved 30 September 2010.  "Terror Blast Kills 7, Including 5 Americans, at Jerusalem University." Archived 2 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine Fox News. 1 August 2002.  "Mystery surrounds 'suicide' of Abu Nidal, once a ruthless killer and face of terror – Middle East, World – The Independent". Independent.co.uk. 2 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2 September 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Attempt to carry explosives device on El Al flight foiled". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Encyclopedia of the developing world, Volume 3 pg. 1228  Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Volume 3. M. Leonard, Thomas  Syria: A Country Study, Federal Research Division  Rabinovich, Itamar; Shaked, Haim (20 September 1989). Middle East Contemporary Survey, Volume Xi, 1987. The Moshe Dayan Center. ISBN 978-0-8133-0925-5. Archived from the original on 21 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  "How Israel builds its fifth column". Christian Science Monitor. 22 May 2002. ISSN 0882-7729. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "PCHR Publishes 'Black Days in the Absence of Justice: Report on Bloody Fighting in the Gaza Strip from 7 to 14 June 2007.'" Archived 4 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine Palestinian Center for Human Rights. 9 October 2007  "Over 600 Palestinians killed in internal clashes since 2006". Ynetnews. 6 June 2007. Archived from the original on 5 February 2019. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Hasson, Nir (30 June 2013). "How many Palestinians actually live in the West Bank?". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 1 November 2014. Retrieved 18 October 2014.  Messerschmid, Clemens (2002). "Till the Last Drop: The Palestinian Water Crisis in the West Bank, Hydrogeology and Hydropolitics of a Regional Conflict" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 29 November 2008.  "Archived copy". www.knesset.gov.il. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Oslo+21 and Water Problems in Palestine: A Story of Failure  "Water war leaves Palestinians thirsty". BBC News. 16 June 2003. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012. Retrieved 2 January 2012.  "Israel". Aquastat. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Archived from the original on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 25 February 2013.  "Lack of sufficient services in Gaza could get worse without urgent action, UN warns". UN News Centre. 27 August 2012. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2013.  Assaf, Karen; Attia, Bayoumi; Darwish, Ali; Wardam, Batir; Klawitter, Simone (2004), Water as a human right: The understanding of water in the Arab countries of the Middle East – A four country analysis, Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, p. 229, archived from the original on 4 March 2016, retrieved 23 April 2014  "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem : report of the Secretary-General". United Nations. 5 November 2008. Archived from the original on 22 May 2012. Retrieved 16 April 2009.  "Israel and the Palestinians". BBC News. Archived from the original on 7 April 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Shamir, Shimon (2005). The Camp David Summit—what Went Wrong?: Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians Analyze the Failure of the Boldest Attempt Ever to Resolve the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-099-6. Archived from the original on 21 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.  "Arafat leads, misery follows." Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine Chicago Tribune. 6 June 2001. 2 June 2012.  Somfalvi, Attila (30 April 2013). "Livni on Arab initiative: They realized border must change". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Benhorin, Yitzhak; AP (30 April 2013). "Arabs soften stance on Israel's final borders". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Arab states back Israel-Palestine land swaps". Al Jazeera. 30 April 2013. Archived from the original on 9 August 2020. Retrieved 30 April 2013.  Sela 2002, pp. 121–147, Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking"  "Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders". TheGuardian.com. May 2017. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2023.  "Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" (PDF). azdema.gov. Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2016.  "Israeli Military Order Targets West Bank 'Infiltrators'". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 28 March 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "House of Commons – International Development – Second Report." United Kingdom Parliament. 2004.  "The Middle East and security in Europe." Archived 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine Assembly of WEU'. 15 May 2001.  "SC/6332 : Israel Should Rescind Decision to Build Settlement in East Jerusalem, Say Speakers in Security Council." United Nations. 6 March 1997.  "EU-Settlements' Watch." Archived 14 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine 1 February – 31 July 2002. p. 1. PDF.  "Israel confirms settlement growth". 21 March 2005. Archived from the original on 19 February 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Ettinger, Yoram (18 June 2005). "Six reasons to settle". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Dershowitz. The Case for Israel. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. pp. 176–177  Jacob, Aaron. "Historical, Legal, and Political Aspects of Israeli Settlement Policy." Archived 22 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine American Jewish Committee. 18 June 2009. 13 October 2010.  "Israel 'to keep some settlements'". 12 April 2005. Archived from the original on 9 March 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6–04–09". whitehouse.gov. 4 June 2009. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Landler, Mark; Kershner, Isabel (27 May 2009). "Israeli Settlement Growth Must Stop, Clinton Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 23 February 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Delaney, Paul (20 December 2010). "President Obama, West Bank Settlement Expansion and the Peace Process". The Root. Archived from the original on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 2 January 2012.  "Jewish settler population in the West Bank surpasses half a million". Los Angeles Times. 2 February 2023.  "Israel to ramp up settlement expansion in occupied West Bank". Al-Jazeera. 18 June 2023.  "Far-right Israeli Minister Lays Groundwork for Doubling West Bank Settler Population". Haaretz. 18 May 2023.  Sharon, Jeremy (23 February 2023). "Smotrich handed sweeping powers over West Bank, control over settlement planning". The Times of Israel.  McGreal, Chris (24 February 2023). "Former US ambassador accuses Israel of 'creeping annexation' of the West Bank". The Guardian.  Sharon, Jeremy (18 June 2023). "Netanyahu hands Smotrich full authority to expand existing settlements". www.timesofisrael.com.  "Court extends remand of Israelis aboard Gaza ship". Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015. Retrieved 4 November 2012.  "Position paper on the naval blockade on Gaza." Archived 16 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine 8 September 2010.  The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs The Humanitarian Monitor. December Overview, 2011 Archived 14 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine, OCHA 31 December 2011  "Interception of the Gaza flotilla-Legal aspects". Mag.idf.il. Archived from the original on 30 December 2011. Retrieved 2 January 2012.  "The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion" (PDF). Oxfam. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 January 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2010.  "As World Focuses On Gaza, Grim Lives Go On". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Pinfold, Rob Geist (2023). "Security, Terrorism, and Territorial Withdrawal: Critically Reassessing the Lessons of Israel's "Unilateral Disengagement" from the Gaza Strip". International Studies Perspectives. King’s College London, UK and Charles University, Czech Republic. 24 (1): 67–87. doi:10.1093/isp/ekac013. Archived from the original on 17 October 2023. Retrieved 17 October 2023.  "2,279 Calories per Person: How Israel Made Sure Gaza Didn't Starve". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Israel used 'calorie count' to limit Gaza food during blockade, critics claim". The Guardian. Associated Press. 17 October 2012. Archived from the original on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 18 October 2014.  "Israel set calorie limit during Gaza blockade". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 15 October 2014. Retrieved 18 October 2014.  "Murder at the border." Archived 16 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine Jerusalem Post. 9 April 2008. 17 April 2008.  Benhorin, Yitzhak; Associated Press (20 June 2010). "Cabinet: All non-military items can enter Gaza freely". Ynetnews. Archived from the original on 23 June 2010. Retrieved 21 June 2010.  Oster, Marcy (21 June 2010). "Reaction mixed to Israeli announcement on easing of Gaza blockade". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Archived from the original on 6 August 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2010.  John Lyons (28 March 2013). "Israel 'agrees' to Gaza easing". The Australian. Archived from the original on 27 March 2013. Retrieved 28 March 2013.  Robert Tait (24 March 2013). "Israel flotilla apology 'did not include promise to lift Gaza siege'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 28 March 2013.  "Israel announces 'total' blockade on Gaza". www.aljazeera.com. 9 October 2023.  "Israel announces 'complete siege' of Gaza, cutting its electricity, food, water, and fuel". Business Insider. 9 October 2023.  "Israel: Unlawful Gaza Blockade Deadly for Children". Human Rights Watch. 18 October 2023.  Gelvin, James L. (2005). The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: 100 Years of War. New York: Cambridge University Press.  From 1947 to 2023: Retracing the complex, tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict  Sa'id & Abu-Lughod, Ahmad & Lila (2007). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press.  "Agriculture in Palestine: a post-Oslo Analysis" (PDF). 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 September 2015. Retrieved 24 April 2014.  "Poverty and the Labor Market: A Sheer Lack of Jobs?" (PDF). Coping with Conflict: Poverty and Inclusion in the West Bank and Gaza. pp. 37–61. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 September 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2014.  "Palestinians lose billions to Israeli land bans, says World Bank report". The National. 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 13 April 2014.  Stein, Rebecca (2008). Itineraries in Conflict. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 9.  Davis, Rochelle (2013). Palestine and the Palestinians in the 21st century. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.  "Palestinian Economic Recovery Plan Takes Shape". The National. Agence France-Presse. 12 July 2013. Archived from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 14 April 2014.  Chalabi, Mona (14 October 2013). "How Does Palestine's Economy Work?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 May 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.  From 1947 to 2023: Retracing the complex, tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict  Patience, Martin (19 June 2007). "Q&A: Palestinian Embargo". BBC Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 12 May 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.  "2009 W.Bank terror activity down by 97% compared to 2002". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "PA security forces seize 17 bombs, transfer them to IDF". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Route 443 opens to Palestinians". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "UN: Israel has dismantled 20 percent of West Bank checkpoint". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Israel sets up trial program to expedite PA export process". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "IDF mulls entry to West Bank cities by Jewish Israelis". The Jerusalem Post. 14 July 2020. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Facts About Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010. p. 52.  Dershowitz. The Case for Israel. p. 3.  "Abbas says there is 'no way' he'll recognize Israel as Jewish state". 7 March 2014. Archived from the original on 6 August 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.  Associated, The (11 May 1949). "Report: Abbas reiterates refusal to recognize Israel as 'Jewish state'". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 26 October 2012. Retrieved 2 January 2012.  Klein, Aaron (4 October 2006). "Fatah member: Abbas recognition of Israel political". Ynetnews. YNet. Archived from the original on 25 October 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2011.  "Palestinian rivals: Fatah & Hamas". 17 June 2007. Archived from the original on 19 December 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Sela 2002, pp. 673–679, "Palestinian Authority"  Bard. Will Israel Survive? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.  Massad, Joseph. "The (Anti-) Palestinian Authority." Archived 25 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine Al Ahram Weekly. 15–21 June 2006. 8 May 2008.  "Column One: Israel's American-made foes". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls". users.erols.com. Archived from the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "All wars in the 20th century, since 1900 | the Polynational War Memorial". www.war-memorial.net. Archived from the original on 20 December 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides". 6 May 2009. Archived from the original on 6 May 2009. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Fatalities in the first Intifada". B'Tselem. Archived from the original on 29 April 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Data on casualties". United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHAoPt). United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.  Alfonseca, Kiara (11 October 2023). "Palestinian civilians suffer in Israel-Gaza crossfire as death toll rises". ABC News. Archived from the original on 12 October 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023. "roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis".  "Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 – Key Trends." Archived 3 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. August 2007. PDF.  "The Humanitarian Monitor." Archived 16 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. December 2007. PDF. Tables on pages 5 and 7, all numbers refer to casualties of the direct conflict as defined therein (page 23).  "Statistics". B'Tselem. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "B'Tselem: Since 2000, 7,454 Israelis, Palestinians killed". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  Mor, Avi, et al. "Casualties in Operation Cast Lead: A closer look." Archived 1 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. 2009. PDF.  "B'Tselem: 773 of Palestinians killed in Cast Lead were civilians". Ynetnews. 9 September 2009. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.  "Country Overviews – Occupied Palestinian Territory". United Nations Mine Action Service. 2009. Archived from the original on 26 September 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2010. External links Israeli–Palestinian conflict at Wikipedia's sister projects Media from Commons News from Wikinews Data from Wikidata United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – occupied Palestinian territory United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Academic, news, and similar sites (excluding Israeli or Palestinian sources) U.S. Attempts at Peace between Israel and Palestine from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives Gaza\Sderot : Life in spite of everything – a web documentary produced by arte.tv, in which daily video-chronicles (2 min. each) show the life of 5 people (men, women, children) in Gaza and Sderot, on both sides of the border. Global Politician – Middle-East Section Middle East Policy Council Aix Group – Joint Palestinian-Israeli-international economic working group. Crash Course World History 223: Conflict in Israel and Palestine – Renowned author and YouTube educator John Green gives a brief history lesson (13 minutes) on the conflict. The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict—An overview of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from 1948 through the present day. From the History Guy Website. The Media Line – A non-profit news agency which provides credible, unbiased content, background and context from across the Middle East. Conflict resolution groups OneVoice Movement – One Million Voices to End the Conflict Seeking Common Ground Human rights groups Human Rights Watch: Israel/Palestine B'Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Al-Haq: Palestinian Human Rights Group Archived 15 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine: West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists Palestinian Centre for Human Rights PCHR: Gaza affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists Gush-Shalom: Gush-Shalom Israeli Peace Movement Jewish and Israeli academic, news, and similar sites A history of Israel, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Honest Reporting monitoring mideast media True Peace Archived 17 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Chabad-Lubavitch site What the Fight in Israel Is All About – The Media Line Jewish and Israeli "peace movement" news and advocacy sites The Origin of the Palestine – Israel Conflict, Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East Other sites Arabs and Israelis held hostage by a common enemy Salom Now! and METalks are two experimental initiatives which sought to rewrite the script of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. However, such popular, grassroots action is held hostage by some common enemies: despair, hatred, antipathy and distrust. (Jan 2007) Exchange of friendly fire Anat el-Hashahar, an Israeli and founder of METalks, debates the Arab–Israeli conflict – from Oslo to Lebanon – with Khaled Diab, an Egyptian journalist and writer. Website with information (articles, reports, maps, books, links, etc.) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Map of Palestinian Refugee Camps 1993 (UNRWA/C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Map of Israel 2008 (C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Map of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank Dec. 1993 (C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Map of Israeli Settlements in the Gaza Strip Dec. 1993 (C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Map of Jerusalem Mar. 1993 (C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Map of Jericho and Vicinity Jan. 1994 (C.I.A./Univ. of Texas, Austin) Pew Global Research – worldwide public opinion Policy publications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive vte Israeli–Palestinian conflict Participants Israel Israel Defense ForcesIsrael PoliceMossadShabak (Shin Bet) Palestinians Principals All-Palestine ProtectoratePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO)FatahHamasPalestinian National Authority Other groups al-Aqsa BrigadesDFLPJenin BrigadesIslamic JihadLions' DenPLFPPSFPFLPPFLP-GCPRCSabireen Movement Third-party groups Arab LeagueHezbollah Individuals Israelis Moshe ArensAmi AyalonEhud BarakDavid Ben-GurionNaftali BennettMenachem BeginMeir DaganMoshe DayanAvi DichterYuval DiskinBenny GantzEfraim HalevyDan HalutzTzipi LivniGolda MeirShaul MofazYitzhak MordechaiBenjamin NetanyahuEhud OlmertShimon PeresYaakov PeriYitzhak RabinAmnon Lipkin-ShahakYitzhak ShamirAriel SharonShabtai ShavitMoshe Ya'alonDanny YatomZvi Zamir Palestinians Abu AbbasMahmoud AbbasMoussa ArafatYasser ArafatYahya AyyashMarwan BarghoutiMohammed DahlanMohammed DeifGeorge HabashWadie HaddadIsmail HaniyehNayef HawatmehAmin al-HusayniGhazi JabaliAhmed JibrilAbu JihadSalah KhalafLeila KhaledSheikh KhalilKhaled MashalZuheir MohsenAbu Ali MustafaAbu NidalIzz ad-Din al-QassamJibril RajoubAbdel Aziz al-RantisiAli Hassan SalamehSalah ShehadeRamadan ShalahFathi ShaqaqiAhlam TamimiAhmed Yassin Timeline military operations Background 1920–1948 1920 Nebi Musa riotsBattle of Tel Hai1921 Jaffa riots1929 Palestine riots Hebron massacre1936–1939 Arab revolt1944–1947 Jewish insurgency1947–1948 Civil War   1948–1970 1948 Arab–Israeli War massacres1948–present Fedayeen insurgency 1951–1967 Attacks against Israeli civilians1950s–1960s IDF reprisal operations1953 Qibya massacre1956 Kafr Qasim / Khan Yunis / Rafah massacres1967 Six-Day War1967–1970 War of Attrition 1968 Battle of Karameh Palestinian insurgency 1968–1982 1970 Avivim school bus bombing1972 Sabena Flight 571 / Munich massacre / Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre (1973 Lillehammer affair)1974 Kiryat Shmona massacre / Ma'alot massacre1975 Savoy Hotel attack1976 Operation "Entebbe"1978 Coastal Road massacre / South Lebanon conflict1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis   1973–1987 1973 Yom Kippur War1975 Zion Square bombing1982 Lebanon War Siege of Beirut1983 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic1984 Bus 300 affair1985 Achille Lauro hijacking / Operation "Wooden Leg"1987 Night of the Gliders First Intifada 1987–1991 1988 Tunis Raid1989 Bus 405 attack1990 Temple Mount riots1990s Palestinian suicide attacks1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre Second Intifada 2000–2005 Palestinian rocket attacks listsPalestinian suicide attacksIsraeli assassinations2000 October events2001 Santorini2002 Karine A / Operation "Defensive Shield" / Battle of Jenin / Battle of Nablus / Operation "Determined Path"2003 Ain es Saheb airstrike2004 Operation "Rainbow" / Beit Hanoun raid / Operation "Days of Penitence" Palestinian dissident campaigns 2006–present 2006 Operation "Bringing Home the Goods"2008 Jerusalem yeshiva attack / Jerusalem bulldozer attack2009 Temple Mount clashes2010 Palestinian militancy campaign2015–2016 wave of violence2017 Temple Mount crisis2021 Israel–Palestine crisis2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes Gaza–Israel conflict 2006–present 2006 Gaza beach explosion / Gaza cross-border raid / Operation "Summer Rains" / Operation "Autumn Clouds" / Beit Hanoun shelling2008 Gaza–Egypt border breach / Operation "Hot Winter"2008–2009 Gaza War2010 Gaza flotilla raid2012 Operation "Returning Echo" / Operation "Pillar of Defense"2014 Operation "Protective Edge"2015 Freedom Flotilla III2018 Gaza border protests / November clashes2019 May clashes / November clashes2021 Operation "Guardian of the Walls"2022 Operation "Breaking Dawn"2023 May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes / 2023 Israel–Hamas war Diplomacy Timeline 1948–1991 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight depopulated towns and villages1949 Lausanne Conference1967–present Israeli settlement settler violenceinternational law 1990s 1981–1982 Fahd Plan1991 Madrid Conference1993–1995 Oslo Accords1994 Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol)1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement1994–present US security assistance to PNA1997 Hebron Agreement1998 Wye River Memorandum1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum 2000s 2000 Camp David Summit / Clinton Parameters2001 Taba Summit2002 Quartet established2003 Road Map2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza2005 Agreement on Movement and Access2006 Valley of Peace initiative2007 Annapolis Conference2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy 2010s 2010–11 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2011 Palestine Papers2013–2014 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks Israel, Palestine and the United Nations 1947 UN Resolution 1811948 UN Resolution 1941967 UN Resolution 242 Links to related articles vte Ongoing armed conflicts Africa Central Allied Democratic Forces insurgencyAnglophone CrisisCabinda WarCentral African Republic Civil WarInsurgency in Northern ChadInsurgency in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Ituri conflictKivu conflict M23 offensiveLord's Resistance Army insurgency East ADF insurgencyEthiopian civil conflict Afar–Somali clashesOLA insurgencyOromo conflictWar in AmharaEthnic violence in South SudanInsurgency in MozambiqueSomali Civil War Operation Atalanta North Insurgency in EgyptInsurgency in the Maghreb Insurgency in the SahelIslamic State insurgency in TunisiaJihadist insurgency in Burkina FasoJihadist insurgency in NigerLibyan CrisisSinai insurgencySudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue NileSudanese nomadic conflicts Ethnic violence in South SudanWar in DarfurWestern Sahara conflict Western Saharan clashes West Communal conflicts in Nigeria Boko Haram insurgencyHerder–farmer conflicts in NigeriaNigerian bandit conflictReligious violence in NigeriaConflict in the Niger DeltaInsurgency in Southeastern NigeriaMali War Internal conflict in AzawadWestern Togoland Rebellion Americas North Jamaican political conflictMexican drug war2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown2022 Honduran gang crackdownGang war in Haiti South Colombian conflictEcuadorian security crisisInsurgency in ParaguayInternal conflict in PeruMapuche conflict Asia East Korean conflict Central Xinjiang conflict South Afghan conflict Islamic State–Taliban conflictRepublican insurgency Insurgency in Northeast India Arunachal PradeshAssamMeghalayaManipurNagalandTripuraInternal conflict in Bangladesh DrugsKashmir conflict Insurgency in Jammu and KashmirNaxalite–Maoist insurgency Insurgency in Pakistan Insurgency in SindhSistan and Baluchestan insurgencyInsurgency in Khyber PakhtunkhwaAfghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishesInsurgency in SindhSectarian violence in Pakistan South- east Internal conflict in Myanmar Myanmar civil warKachin conflictKalay clashesKaren conflictKaren–Mon conflictConflict in Rakhine StateRohingya conflictConflicts in the Philippines CommunistDrug warPapua conflictSouth Thailand insurgency West Georgian–Abkhaz conflictGeorgian–Ossetian conflictSistan and Baluchestan insurgencyIraq conflict Islamic State insurgency in IraqIran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict Qatif conflictYemeni Crisis Saudi Arabian–led interventionKhuzestan conflictYemeni Civil warIran–Israel proxy conflict Gaza–Israel conflictIsrael–Hezbollah conflictIran–Israel conflict in SyriaKurdish separatism in Iran Iran–PJAK conflictWestern Iran clashesKurdish–Turkish conflict 2015–presentMaoist insurgency in Turkey DHKP/C insurgency in TurkeyNagorno-Karabakh conflictSyrian civil war Daraa insurgencyDesert campaignInter-rebel conflictRojava conflictRussian interventionSyrian–Turkish border clashesIslamic State insurgency in Deir ez-Zor Europe East Islamic State insurgency in the North CaucasusRusso-Ukrainian War Russian invasion of Ukraine West Dissident Irish republican campaignLoyalist feud vte Arab–Israeli conflict vte CountriesAuthoritiesOrganizations Primary countries and authorities All-PalestineEgyptian Kingdom and RepublicHamas GazaIraqi Kingdom and Ba'athist IraqIsraelJordanPalestinian National AuthoritySaudi ArabiaSyrian Republic and Ba'athist Syria Organizations Active Abu Nidal OrganizationAmalal-Aqsa Martyrs' BrigadesSyrian Social Nationalist PartyArab LeagueArab Liberation FrontDemocratic Front for the Liberation of PalestineFatahGuardians of the CedarsHamasHezbollahJaish al-IslamKataebLebanese Forcesal-MourabitounMuslim BrotherhoodPalestinian Islamic JihadPalestinian Liberation FrontPalestine Liberation OrganizationPalestinian Popular Struggle FrontPopular Front for the Liberation of PalestinePopular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General CommandPopular Resistance Committeesas-Sa'iqa Inactive or former Arab Higher CommitteeArab Liberation ArmyBlack SeptemberHaganahHoly War ArmyIrgun (Etzel)Japanese Red ArmyLehiPalmachRevolutionary CellsSouth Lebanon Army Other countries FranceKuwaitLibyaMoroccoNorth KoreaUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesYemen Transnational European UnionUnited Nations Former states Soviet UnionUnited Arab Republic vte Armed engagements 1947–1959 1947–1949 Palestine warArab–Israeli War (1948–1949)Palestinian Fedayeen insurgency (1949–1956)Suez Crisis (1956) 1960–1979 Samu incident (1966)Six-Day War (1967)War of Attrition (1967–1970)Battle of Karameh (1968)Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon (1968–1982)1968 Israeli raid on Lebanon (1968)Yom Kippur War (1973)Sabena Flight 571 (1972)Lod Airport massacre (1972)Munich massacre (1972)Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre (1972–1979)Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 (1973)Ma'alot massacre (1974)Savoy Hotel attack (1975)Entebbe (1976)Coastal Road massacre (1978)1978 South Lebanon conflict (1978) 1980–1999 Misgav Am hostage crisis (1980)Opera (1981)Lebanon War (1982)Bus 300 affair (1984)South Lebanon conflict (1985)Wooden Leg (1985)First Intifada (1987–1993)Mothers' Bus attack (1988)Tunis Raid (1988)Iraqi rocket attacks on Israel (1991)Bramble Bush (1992)Palestinian suicide attacks (1993–2008)Accountability (1993)Grapes of Wrath (1996) 2000–2021 Second Intifada (2000–2005)Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (2001–)Ain es Saheb airstrike (2003)Battle of Jericho Prison (2006)Summer Rains (2006)Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun (2006)Lebanon War (2006)Gaza–Israel conflict (2006–) Hot Winter (2007–2008)Gaza War (2008–2009)Palestinian militancy campaign (2010)Southern Israel cross-border attacks (2011)Returning Echo (2012)Pillar of Defense (2012)Gaza War (2014)Wave of violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016)Gaza border protests (2018)Gaza–Israel clashes (2018)Gaza–Israel clashes (2019)Gaza–Israel clashes (2019)Israel–Palestine crisis (2021)Breaking Dawn (2022)Shield and Arrow (2023)Israel–Hamas war (2023) vte Diplomacy and peace proposals Background 1914 Damascus Protocol1915 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement1917 Balfour Declaration1918 Declaration to the Seven / Anglo-French Declaration1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement1920 San Remo conference1922 Churchill White Paper1937 Peel Commission1939 White Paper1939 London Conference1946 Morrison–Grady Plan1947 Bevin Plan1946–47 London Conference1947 UN Partition Plan1948 American trusteeship proposal 1948–1983 1948 UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 1941949 Armistice agreements / Lausanne Conference1950 Tripartite Declaration1967 Khartoum Resolution / UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2421973 UNSC Resolution 338 / UNSC Resolution 3391974 Israel–Syria disengagement agreement / UNSC Resolution 3501978 UNSC Resolution 425 / Camp David Accords1979 UNSC Resolution 446 / Egypt–Israel peace treaty Palestinian autonomy talks / UNSC Resolution 4521980 UNSC Resolution 4781981 UNSC Resolution 4971981–1982 Fahd Plan1982 Reagan peace plan1983 Israel–Lebanon agreement 1991–2016 1991 Madrid Conference1993 Oslo Accords1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement / Israel–Jordan peace treaty1995 Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement1998 Wye River Memorandum1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum2000 Camp David Summit / Clinton Parameters2000 Isratin2001 Taba Summit2002 Beirut Summit and peace initiative / Road map2003 Geneva Initiative2004 UNSC Resolution 1559 / UNSC Resolution 15662005 UNSC Resolution 1583 / Sharm El Sheikh Summit / Israeli disengagement from Gaza / Agreement on Movement and Access2006 UNSC Resolution 17012007 Annapolis Conference2010 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2013 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2016 John Kerry Parameters 2019–present 2019 Trump peace plan2020 Abraham Accords Israel–UAE normalization agreementBahrain–Israel normalization agreementIsrael–Sudan normalization agreementIsrael–Morocco normalization agreement2022  Israeli–Lebanese maritime border dispute agreement vte Zionism and the Land of Israel Land of Israel Independent Israel Modern Israel Land of Israel History Prehistory / History of the Levant History of ancient Israel and Judah Laws and customs of the Land of Israel in Judaism The Jewish people Timeline of Jewish history History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel (leaders) Modern Jewish settlement History of Israel, Israeli Jews, Culture of Israel, Law of Return History to 1948 Zionism (history, timeline), Aliyah, Balfour Declaration, Mandate document, Mandatory Palestine 1949 cease-fire borders of Israel History UN Partition Plan, Declaration of Independence Politics Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Peace process, Iran–Israel conflict, Arab–Israeli alliance Society and economy Kibbutzim and Moshavim, Exodus from Arab countries, Development towns, Austerity, Agriculture technology Contemporary Israel Green Line Israeli settlements Timeline, International law West Bank Judea and Samaria Area Gaza Strip Geography, Hof Aza Regional Council East Jerusalem Status of Jerusalem vte Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine Palestine (British Mandate borders) State of Palestine Palestinian National Authority Name Timeline of the name "Palestine" History Time periods Demographics Nakba Israeli–Palestinian conflict Palestinians Culture RefugeesDiaspora Right of return Political status History Palestine Liberation Organization Green Line Palestinian territories West Bank HistoryGeographyEnclaves Gaza Strip HistoryGeography East Jerusalem Positions on Jerusalem Jerusalem Governorate Oslo Accords Interim Agreement ("Oslo 2") Politics Cities (PNA–administered) Electoral districts Foreign relations Governorates Law Legislative Council Political parties FatahHamas vte Israel Foreign relations of Israel Africa AlgeriaAngolaBotswanaCameroonChadEgyptEquatorial GuineaEritreaEthiopiaGhanaGuineaKenyaLiberiaLibyaMalawiMauritaniaMauritiusMoroccoNamibiaNigerNigeriaSeychellesSierra LeoneSomalilandSouth AfricaSouth SudanSudanTunisiaUgandaZimbabwe Emblem of Israel Americas ArgentinaBarbadosBoliviaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaCubaHaitiMexicoPanamaParaguayPeruUnited States militaryUruguayVenezuela Asia AfghanistanArmeniaAzerbaijanBahrainBangladeshBhutanCambodiaChina Hong KongEast TimorGeorgiaIndiaIndonesiaIranIraq Kurdistan RegionJapanJordanKazakhstanKuwaitLebanonMalaysiaMaldivesMyanmarNepalNorth KoreaOmanPakistanPalestinePhilippinesQatarSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth KoreaSri LankaSyriaTaiwanThailandTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesVietnamYemen Europe AlbaniaAustriaBelarusBelgiumCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHoly SeeHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyKosovoLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaMonacoNetherlandsNorth MacedoniaNorwayPolandRomaniaRussiaSan MarinoSerbiaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUkraineUnited Kingdom Oceania AustraliaFijiMarshall IslandsMicronesiaNauruNew ZealandPalauPapua New GuineaSamoaTonga Former East GermanySoviet UnionYugoslavia Multilateral relations Arab world Arab LeagueArab–Israeli conflictArab–Israeli coalitionEuropean UnionUnited Nations Diplomacy Camp David AccordsEgyptJordanPalestineAbraham AccordsUnited Arab EmiratesBahrainSudanMoroccoDiplomatic missions of Israel / in IsraelMinistry of Foreign AffairsInternational recognitionLegitimacy / Right to exist vte State of Palestine Foreign relations of the State of Palestine Africa AlgeriaBurkina FasoEgyptLibyaMoroccoSahrawi RepublicSouth AfricaSudanTanzaniaTunisia Coat of arms of Palestine Americas ArgentinaBrazilCanadaChileCubaEl SalvadorHondurasMexicoPeruUnited StatesUruguayVenezuela Asia ArmeniaAzerbaijanBangladeshBahrainChinaGeorgiaIndiaIndonesiaIranIraq Kurdistan RegionIsraelJapanJordanLebanonKazakhstanMalaysiaNorth KoreaPakistanSaudi ArabiaSri LankaSyriaThailandTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesVietnamYemen Europe AlbaniaAustriaBelarusBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaBulgariaCyprusDenmarkGermanyGreeceHoly SeeHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyLuxembourgMaltaMontenegroNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSerbiaSlovakiaSpainSwedenUkraineUnited Kingdom Disputes Israeli–Palestinian conflictPalestinian political violence Fatah–Hamas conflict Multilateral relations Arab LeagueEuropean UnionNon-Aligned MovementUnited Nations (Security Council resolutions) Related topics Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ExpatriatesDiplomatic missions of / in PalestineRecognition of statehoodLegal statusPalestine 194Foreign relations of Hamas vte Iran–Israel proxy conflict Background Iranian RevolutionIran–Iraq war1999 arrest of Iranian Jews Hezbollah–Israel conflict Israeli–Lebanese conflict South Lebanon Conflict1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats1992 Buenos Aires Israeli embassy bombingAMIA bombing2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid2005 Hezbollah cross-border raid2006 Lebanon War2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange2009 Hezbollah plot in EgyptFrancop AffairJanuary 2015 Shebaa Farms incidentOperation Northern Shield2019 Beirut drone crash2023 Israel–Lebanon shellings2023 Israel–Lebanon border clashesProjectile attacks from Lebanon Israeli–Palestinian conflict Karine A affairVictoria AffairOperation Full Disclosure Gaza–Israel conflict Gaza War (2008–2009)2014 Gaza WarMay 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes2023 Israel–Hamas war Syrian civil war January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikeMay 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikesDecember 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikesJanuary 2015 Mazraat Amal incidentApril 2015 Qalamoun incidentMarch 2017 Israel–Syria incidentFebruary 2018 Israel–Syria incidentOperation House of CardsSeptember 2018 Syria missile strikesAugust 2019 Syria missile strikesNovember 2019 Syria missile strikesJanuary 2021 Syria airstrikesJuly 2022 Damascus airstrikes2023 Damascus airstrikeIsraeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidentsHezbollah involvement International incidents Operation Outside the Box2009 Sudan airstrikes2011 alleged Iran assassination plot2012 attacks on Israeli diplomats 2012 Bangkok bombings2012 Cyprus terrorist plot2012 Burgas bus bombingYarmouk munitions factory explosion2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq2022 Erbil missile attacks2022 Istanbul terror plot Nuclear program of Iran Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists Ardeshir HosseinpourMasoud AlimohammadiMajid ShahriariFereydoon AbbasiMostafa Ahmadi RoshanMohsen FakhrizadehAMAD ProjectBid Kaneh explosionStuxnet2020 Iran explosions2021 Natanz incident2023 Iran drone attacks Related Russia and the Iran–Israel proxy conflictIran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflictAhmad Reza DjalaliAxis of ResistanceIsraeli–Sunni CoalitionAbraham AccordsWarsaw Middle East conferencePeople's Mujahedin of IranLittle SatanZionist entityMahmoud Ahmadinejad and IsraelOpposition to military action against IranIran and state-sponsored terrorismIsrael and state-sponsored terrorismQuds DayPrisoner X2Tehran  Category:Iran–Israel proxy conflict vte Arab nationalism Ideology Arab socialismBa'athismNasserismPan-ArabismThird International Theory History Arab RevoltIntercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine 1936–1939 Arab revolt in PalestineIraqi RevoltArab separatism in Khuzestan 1979 Khuzestan insurgencyGreat Syrian Revolt1941 Iraqi coup d'étatAnglo-Iraqi WarArab–Israeli conflict Suez CrisisSix-Day WarWar of AttritionYom Kippur WarIsraeli–Palestinian conflict1952 Egyptian RevolutionIraqi IntifadaAlgerian War14 July Revolution1959 Mosul uprising1961 Syrian coup d'étatArab Cold WarNorth Yemen Civil WarRamadan Revolution1963 Syrian coup d'étatDhofar WarNovember 1963 Iraqi coup d'étatAden Emergency1966 Syrian coup d'état17 July Revolution1969 Sudanese coup d'état1969 Libyan revolutionBlack SeptemberLebanese Civil WarIran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict Concepts Arab identityArab UnionArab worldArabization Personalities Butrus al-BustaniMichel AflaqJassem AlwanYasser ArafatAbdul Rahman ArifAbdul Salam ArifZaki al-ArsuziBashar al-AssadHafiz al-AssadJamal al-AtassiMansur al-AtrashSultan al-AtrashTariq AzizAhmed Hassan al-BakrAhmed Ben BellaSalah al-Din al-BitarIzzat DarwazaFaisal I of IraqMuammar GaddafiRashid Ali al-GaylaniGeorge HabashSati' al-HusriHussein bin Ali, King of HejazSaddam HusseinAmin al-HusseiniSalah JadidAbd al-Rahman al-KawakibiGamal Abdel NasserAdnan PachachiAmeen RihaniFuad al-RikabiAbdullah RimawiHamdeen SabahiConstantin Zureiq Organizations Al-AwdaAl-FatatAl-MourabitounArab Ba'athArab Ba'ath MovementArab FederationArab Higher CommitteeArab Islamic RepublicArab Liberation ArmyArab Nationalist MovementArab Socialist Action PartyArab Socialist Union (Egypt)Arab Socialist Union (Iraq)Arab Socialist Union (Libya)Arab Socialist Union Party (Syria)Arabian Peninsula People's UnionArmy of the Men of the Naqshbandi OrderBa'ath PartyBa'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)FatahFederation of Arab RepublicsGeneral Military Council for Iraqi RevolutionariesIndependence Party (Mandatory Palestine)Islamic LegionLebanese National MovementNational Liberation Front (Algeria)Palestine Liberation OrganizationPopular Front for the Liberation of PalestineRejectionist FrontSupreme Command for Jihad and LiberationUnified Political CommandUnion of Arab Republics (1972)United Arab RepublicUnited Arab States Literature The Arab AwakeningThe Battle for One DestinyOn the Way of Resurrection Symbolism Coat of arms of the United Arab RepublicEagle of SaladinFlag of the Arab FederationFlag of the Arab RevoltHawk of QuraishPan-Arab colors Related topics Algerian nationalismEgyptian nationalismGreater MauritaniaGreater MoroccoGreater SyriaGreater YemenIraqi nationalismIslamismJordanian nationalismLebanese nationalismLibyan nationalismPalestinian nationalismPan-IslamismSahrawi nationalismSyrian nationalismTunisian nationalism  Category Categories: Israeli–Palestinian conflictAnti-ZionismArab–Israeli conflict20th-century conflicts21st-century conflictsIslam-related controversiesIsraeli irredentismJewish nationalismPalestinian nationalismReligion-based warsWars involving IsraelZionism
  • Condition: New without tags
  • Condition: In Excellent Condition
  • Pendant Shape: Asymmetrical
  • Main Stone Colour: Green
  • Metal: Unknown
  • Secondary Stone: Palestine
  • Necklace Length: 50 cm
  • Main Stone: No Stone
  • Colour: Gold
  • Main Stone Treatment: Unknown
  • Department: Men
  • Main Stone Shape: Chip
  • Pendant/Locket Type: Dog Tag
  • Style: Pendant
  • Base Metal: Unknown
  • Chain Type: Braided
  • Main Stone Creation: Palestine
  • Cut Grade: Palestine
  • Material: Metal
  • Coloured Diamond Intensity: Palestine
  • Total Carat Weight: Palestine
  • Certification: Palestine
  • Brand: Palestine
  • Setting Style: Palestine
  • Diamond Clarity Grade: Palestine
  • Type: Necklace
  • Metal Purity: Unknown
  • Theme: Ethnic
  • Country of Origin: Great Britain

PicClick Insights - Israel Palestine Country Map Flag Gold Necklace Islam Middle East Muslim Unisex PicClick Exclusive

  •  Popularity - 1 watcher, 0.3 new watchers per day, 4 days for sale on eBay. Normal amount watching. 0 sold, 1 available.
  •  Best Price -
  •  Seller - 3,239+ items sold. 0.3% negative feedback. Great seller with very good positive feedback and over 50 ratings.

People Also Loved PicClick Exclusive