Land, identity, and sovereignty are at the heart of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which continues to this day in the historically Palestinian region. Its origins trace back to the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism during the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
ikipedia
The British mandate in the early 20th century and rising tensions Following World War I, the British took control of Palestine under the Mandate system. The 1917 Balfour Declaration expressed British support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, leading to increased Jewish immigration. This influx heightened tensions with the Arab population, who opposed the growing Zionist movement and feared displacement.
Wikipedia
1947–1949: UN Partition Plan and the First Arab–Israeli War
In 1947, the United Nations proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted the plan, but Arab leaders rejected it. Upon Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, neighboring Arab states invaded, resulting in the first Arab–Israeli war. By the war's end in 1949, Israel controlled a significant portion of the territory, while Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively. The Nakba, or "catastrophe," refers to the displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians during this time. Reuters
ikipedia
1967: Six-Day War and Occupation
In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights. The occupation of these territories intensified the conflict, with Israel establishing settlements in the occupied areas, actions considered illegal under international law .
Wikipedia
Late 20th Century: Intifadas and Peace Efforts
The First Intifada (1987–1993) was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, leading to the 1993 Oslo Accords, which aimed to establish a framework for peace and the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. However, the Second Intifada (2000–2005) erupted due to stalled negotiations and continued violence, resulting in significant casualties on both sides .
2005–Present: Gaza Conflicts and Stalemate
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Hamas, an Islamist political and militant group, won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and took control of Gaza in 2007. Since then, Israel and Hamas have engaged in multiple conflicts, with significant civilian casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza .
Le Monde.fr
The most recent major escalation began in October 2023, leading to thousands of deaths and massive displacement of Palestinians. As of March 2025, estimates suggest over 63,000 Palestinians and nearly 2,000 Israelis have been killed in the ongoing conflict, with indect deaths likely much higher .
Wikipedia
Core Issues and the Path Forward
Key issues remain unresolved:
Reuters
Borders and Settlements: Disputes over Israel's borders and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as well as the possibility of a Palestinian state. Jerusalem: Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital.
Refugees: The right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and their descendants.
International efforts, including the two-state solution framework, have yet to yield a lasting resolution. The situation remains complex, with deep-seated historical grievances and geopolitical factors influencing the prospects for peace.
For a more detailed exploration, you might find the following resources helpful:
Although we are philosophical neighbors who share a strong commitment to democracy and the rule of law, Israel and the United States are thousands of miles apart. What we hold in common are the bonds of trust and friendship, qualities that in our eyes make Israel a great nation. No people have fought longer, struggled harder, or sacrificed more than yours in order to survive, to grow, and to live in freedom.”
That struggle continues in our own time, as we’ve witnessed the violent and deadly assaults by Israel’s genocidal and bloodthirsty foes. This generational threat is why the relationship between our two nations is so crucial. And few Americans cherish and advocate for that friendship more than Southern Baptists, who for decades have consistently voiced their support for Israel’s sovereignty and condemned antisemitism both at home and abroad.
The Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest Protestant denomination, with over 45,000 churches and nearly 13 million members
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from J P PRINCE and writers in History and other communities.
Rubio warns if it's not possible to end the war in Ukraine, US needs to 'move on
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a stark warning that the United States may abandon its current peace mediation efforts in Ukraine if no progress is made soon. Speaking to reporters in Paris on April 18, 2025, Rubio stated, "If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on." The remarks signal a growing sense of frustration within the U.S. administration over the prolonged stalemate in peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Rubio's remarks come at an important time in the diplomatic effort to end the war that has devastated Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Despite numerous despite summits, backchannel communications, and high-level negotiations, there hasn't been a complete ceasefire. The most recent talks in Paris-attended by U.S., Ukrainian, and European leaders -failed to achieve a breakthrough. A subsequent round of discussions is scheduled in London, but expectations are muted. Russia, on the other hand, has been uncompromising in its demands, such as the suspension of Ukraine's military mobilization and the cessation of Western arms shipments to Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has strongly rejected these conditions, calling them unacceptable and a threat to national sovereignty. Ukraine continues to insist that any peace agreement must include the withdrawal of Russian forces from occupied territories and accountability for war crimes committed during the conflict. The U.S. administration's push for a peace deal was initially framed by President Donald Trump as a key foreign policy objective. During his campaign and early presidency, Trump promised to end the war swiftly through aggressive diplomacy and leverage over NATO and Russia. However, the reality of deeply rooted territorial, political, and security concerns has significantly complicated such an outcome. Rubio's statement marks a potential shift in U.S. policy. While it does not mean immediate disengagement, it suggests that Washington is considering scaling back its efforts if talks remain unproductive. According to officials, the administration may instead focus more heavily on economic support and rebuilding Ukraine's infrastructure, rather than trying to broker an elusive peace deal. One significant development alongside the diplomatic efforts has been the announcement of a new U.S.-Ukraine economic partnership. On the sidelines of the Paris talks, the two countries signed a memorandum of intent aimed at boosting Ukraine's reconstruction. The agreement lays the groundwork for a multibillion-dollar investment fund that will focus on energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure reconstruction. It also grants access to Ukraine's abundant mineral resources. Rubio noted that while peace remains the top priority, strengthening Ukraine's economy is essential for long-term stability. European leaders have responded cautiously to Rubio's remarks. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Annalena Baerbock have continued to urge all parties to remain engaged in the peace process. Both leaders emphasized that any potential U.S. disengagement could weaken the overall diplomatic front and embolden Russia. Macron, who hosted the recent round of talks, stressed the importance of Western unity in addressing Russian aggression. The idea of "moving on" from peace efforts sends the wrong message at a sensitive time, according to critics of the US strategy. Some analysts worry that it could undermine Ukrainian morale or give Russia the impression that international pressure is waning. Others, however, view Rubio's comments as a realistic assessment of a complex situation that has defied resolution for over three years. years. As the war drags on, the question of how long the U.S. and its allies can sustain their current level of involvement-militarily, economically, and diplomatically-continues to be a subject of debate. Rubio's remarks underscore the urgent need for results, but they also highlight the limits of diplomacy in the face of intransigence on both sides. It remains to be seen whether the United States actually intends to "move on" or is employing the threat as a negotiating tool. What is clear is that patience is wearing thin, and time may be running out for a peaceful resolution.
By J P PRINCE 9 months ago in Journal
Nanchang: A Modern Symbol of China’s Naval Power
In recent years, the world has closely watched the rapid modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy). One of the most important symbols of this transformation is the Nanchang (Hull 101), China’s first Type 055 guided-missile destroyer. Commissioned on 12 January 2020, Nanchang represents a major leap in naval technology and capability. As it completes six years of active service, the ship stands as a clear example of how China’s navy has moved into a new era of advanced maritime power.
By sehzeen fatima6 days ago in History
Where the Pulse Ends
© 2026 Sai Marie Johnson The humidity in the city didn’t just hang; it leaned. It was a thick, stagnant soup of diesel exhaust, ozone, and the metallic tang of blood that drifted from the "Compliance Zones." Joe sat in his rusted sedan, his hands resting loosely on the steering wheel. He wasn't gripping it. He wasn't angry. Anger was a chemical spike, a biological inefficiency. Joe was simply... focused.
By Sai Marie Johnson2 days ago in History
Ludacris and Nelly draw backlash over bookings at MAGA-coded music festival
Ludacris and Nelly headlining a mostly right-wing event is good for them. It’s also great for the genre of hip hop. The two rap veterans have showcased their talents on other stages. Why can’t they perform for mostly MAGA folks and grab that bag?
By Skyler Saunders4 days ago in Beat
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.