Your client, President Obama, is in desperate need of your assistance. The Middle East is looking to him for a solution. The people of Palestine want their land back from Israel. It was seized by the United States and given as a refugee land for the surviving Jewish population after the World War II. Since 1967 most of the West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation. The other part of it, known as the Gaza Strip, is under the control of Hamas, which is a Palestinian force. This specific piece of land is called the West Bank, and it is located on the West Bank of Jordan, in the eastern part of Palestinian territories. The land shares borders with Israel on the west, north, and south sides of the state.
The President of Palestine and the Prime Minister of Israel are in the process of coming to a peaceful negotiation with the help of the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt, and President Obama of the Unites States. While both the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan are assisting in the process, it is Obama that these leaders are looking to for a solution to their issues. At the moment all sides are looking at a two-state solution. This two-state solution would be the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel with Jerusalem as the capital for both Israel and Palestine. (Mubarak).
However, while in the process of negotiating, there have been several violent outbursts in opposition of the arrangements. The Hamas, who control Gaza, are not supporting the peace process. This is detrimental to the meetings that have been taking place throughout these past few weeks. The Hamas is an Islamic militant group that does not believe that any part of the West Bank should remain in Israeli control. In an extreme movement to prove their point, they took credit for the violent attack that lead to the death of two Israeli men and two Israeli women residing in the city Heron in the West Bank. The Hamas’s lack of cooperation causes such a problem because Gaza needs to be part of the peace negotiations as well.
According to your work The Prince, which is to serve as a reference book to those in power, you would not support this two-state solution. There is at no point any mention of coming to peace with an opposing country that is threatening to overtake the land, whether it was theirs to begin with in the first place or not.
In Chapter XIV, you state that “A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this particular province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules, and is of such efficiency that it not merely maintains those who are born Princes, but often enables men to rise to that eminence from a private station”. You claim that the easiest way to lose a state is to have a leader who does not study the art of war and that the easiest way to win a state is to have a leader skilled in the art of war. You also say that the study of warfare is essential at all times, even in times of peace, and that lack of preparation will lead to the downfall of the princedom, or in this case, the state. It seems as thought the option you would choose to settle the situation between Palestine and Israel would be to have them go to war over it, see who the stronger of the two is, and let them rule the land.With this option you would observe the strengths of both militaries, which according to you are the most important aspect of a princedom.
If you do not think that this tactic would lead to the best result, you also support the idea of wiping out entire populations. In Chapter III you endorse the decision to wipe out threatening civilizations. If you take control of land and the people are not willing to change their ways and take up new customs, then they must be destroyed. “For the Prince, using rebellion as a pretext, will not scruple to secure himself by punishing the guilty, bringing the suspected to trial, and otherwise strengthening his position in the points where it was weak.”This could be interpreted to mean that the Palestinian Authority should completely wipe out the Hamas in Gaza, to proceed with the peace negotiations, or that the Hamas should completely wipe out the Israeli’s from the West Bank.
You would support the Hamas if they were to take control over the West Bank, as well as their present land of Gaza because they are choosing exactly what you told those who face the decision, whether to be loved or feared, to choose, and that is to be feared. The Hamas are choosing to inflict terror on the Israelis, rather than go along with the peace negotiations. They have proven this by the use of violent means in an effort to exert control over the state. “And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved”.
However, if the Hamas were to be overthrown then the peace negotiations could be carried out. Gaza has to be part of the process in making peace among the civilizations, and currently they are refusing to listen. If the Hamas would become a positive part of the solution, then the negotiations would have a much better chance at having a satisfactory outcome. This is the first attempt at a peaceful solution for the two civilizations in ten years.
Your client, President Obama, is in desperate need of your assistance. The Middle East is looking to him for a solution. The people of Palestine want their land back from Israel. It was seized by the United States and given as a refugee land for the surviving Jewish population after the World War II. Since 1967 most of the West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation. The other part of it, known as the Gaza Strip, is under the control of Hamas, which is a Palestinian force. This specific piece of land is called the West Bank, and it is located on the West Bank of Jordan, in the eastern part of Palestinian territories. The land shares borders with Israel on the west, north, and south sides of the state.
The President of Palestine and the Prime Minister of Israel are in the process of coming to a peaceful negotiation with the help of the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt, and President Obama of the Unites States. While both the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan are assisting in the process, it is Obama that these leaders are looking to for a solution to their issues. At the moment all sides are looking at a two-state solution. This two-state solution would be the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel with Jerusalem as the capital for both Israel and Palestine. (Mubarak).
However, while in the process of negotiating, there have been several violent outbursts in opposition of the arrangements. The Hamas, who control Gaza, are not supporting the peace process. This is detrimental to the meetings that have been taking place throughout these past few weeks. The Hamas is an Islamic militant group that does not believe that any part of the West Bank should remain in Israeli control. In an extreme movement to prove their point, they took credit for the violent attack that lead to the death of two Israeli men and two Israeli women residing in the city Heron in the West Bank. The Hamas’s lack of cooperation causes such a problem because Gaza needs to be part of the peace negotiations as well.
According to your work The Prince, which is to serve as a reference book to those in power, you would not support this two-state solution. There is at no point any mention of coming to peace with an opposing country that is threatening to overtake the land, whether it was theirs to begin with in the first place or not.
In Chapter XIV, you state that “A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this particular province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules, and is of such efficiency that it not merely maintains those who are born Princes, but often enables men to rise to that eminence from a private station”. You claim that the easiest way to lose a state is to have a leader who does not study the art of war and that the easiest way to win a state is to have a leader skilled in the art of war. You also say that the study of warfare is essential at all times, even in times of peace, and that lack of preparation will lead to the downfall of the princedom, or in this case, the state. It seems as thought the option you would choose to settle the situation between Palestine and Israel would be to have them go to war over it, see who the stronger of the two is, and let them rule the land.With this option you would observe the strengths of both militaries, which according to you are the most important aspect of a princedom.
If you do not think that this tactic would lead to the best result, you also support the idea of wiping out entire populations. In Chapter III you endorse the decision to wipe out threatening civilizations. If you take control of land and the people are not willing to change their ways and take up new customs, then they must be destroyed. “For the Prince, using rebellion as a pretext, will not scruple to secure himself by punishing the guilty, bringing the suspected to trial, and otherwise strengthening his position in the points where it was weak.”This could be interpreted to mean that the Palestinian Authority should completely wipe out the Hamas in Gaza, to proceed with the peace negotiations, or that the Hamas should completely wipe out the Israeli’s from the West Bank.
You would support the Hamas if they were to take control over the West Bank, as well as their present land of Gaza because they are choosing exactly what you told those who face the decision, whether to be loved or feared, to choose, and that is to be feared. The Hamas are choosing to inflict terror on the Israelis, rather than go along with the peace negotiations. They have proven this by the use of violent means in an effort to exert control over the state. “And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved”.
However, if the Hamas were to be overthrown then the peace negotiations could be carried out. Gaza has to be part of the process in making peace among the civilizations, and currently they are refusing to listen. If the Hamas would become a positive part of the solution, then the negotiations would have a much better chance at having a satisfactory outcome. This is the first attempt at a peaceful solution for the two civilizations in ten years.
Sincerely,
Natalie Kuehl