Arabsko Israeli War. Jews are still homeless

Introduction

Arab-Israeli conflict lasts for more than half a century. The beginning of this conflict was associated with the creation in 1948 on the territory of Palestine Israel. However, the process associated with the creation of this state began even earlier, at the end of 18 -the century and were associated with the so-called political zionism. This caused a negative reaction from the Arab population of Palestine and neighboring countries, since the British administration promised the Arabamas on the territory of Palestine Arab state. Disagreements led to war, during which the state of Israel not only managed to survive, but also seized a significant part of the territory intended for the Arab state. After that, a few more conflicts were followed between Israel and neighboring Arab states. The greatest impact on subsequent events was provided by the 1967 war, as well as the "six-day war", during which Israel seized the eastern part of Jerusalem, the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip, Sinai and the Golan heights. In addition to the fact that this has complicated relations with neighboring Arab countries, the occupation of the Israelis of these territories led to the flight of Palestinians into neighboring countries, exacerbating the problem of Palestinian refugees. Up to 1990. -x years Palestinian-Israeli relations practically did not develop, since Palestinians refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, Israel perceived Palestinians as terrorists and refused to discuss issues of creating a Palestinian state and refugee issue. Fracture occurred at the end of 1980 -x early 1990. -x years, with the collapse of the USSR. The United States has become the main center of power in the world and the US administration took a number of steps aimed at settling the Middle East conflict.

The question of Arab-Israeli settlement still remains one of the most actual questions world politics. Recent collisions between the IDF and the members of the Hamas movement in 2012 g., show - Parties need to make solutions as soon as possible, which will be able to lead to the final peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which would allow the parties to provide each other warranty of peaceful coexistence. This decision was started by the Israeli side immediately after the end of the "six-day war", when a number of Mossad officers were expressed in order to separate Israel from the territory of the Eastern Shore and the Gaza sector, and to create a Palestinian state in these territories. But then the management of Israel underestimated the danger represented by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for Israel, and considered that it would be more profitable for ensuring the security of Israel to leave these territories. Subsequent terrorist acts on the part of Palestinian fighters for liberation finally spoiled the relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis, which led to the frost work on the search for compromise. On the this moment It is impractical to argue about who is to blame for the current situation, since the problem of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement has not yet been solved and it is necessary to solve, based on the current state of Palestinian-Israeli relations.

It should also be remembered about the importance of this region for the world, since in addition to culturally religious value, we are talking about a region with a population of about 12 million people. Of course, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the only problem in the region of the Middle and Middle East, since in addition to him there are confrontation problems of Islamic extremism, Iran's nuclear program or a question of Syrian settlement, which includes the issue of reserves of chemical weapons of this country. However, the peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict can significantly discharge the situation in the region, since many regional contradictions are tied to this conflict.

The early resolution of this problem is extremely important for Israel, since it is the resolution of the Palestinian problem that will become one of the main guarantors of the state's security. Also, it cannot but disturb that many Palestinian groupings gradually pass under the control of Iran. This is seen from the latest events, during which the Iranian rockets were applied against Israel, which indicates the convergence of Palestinian radical movements and the Iranian government. For Israel, this problem is particularly relevant, since the loyal Iran Palestinian groupings can play the role of the "fifth column" in a possible confrontation between Israel and Iran.

The degree of development of the topic: The theoretical and methodological basis of the work amounted to many scientists. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an object of close attention of a number of domestic and foreign researchers. The interest of scientists to this conflict is primarily due to the significance of this topic for regional and world development.

One of the most notable Russian-speaking researchers of the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflict is A. Epstein is a specialist in studying history and sociology, one of the largest Russian-speaking specialists in the field of Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of its monographs are actively used in work, which help to reveal the Israeli point of view on the settlement process.

Another valuable source of information regarding the internal processes occurring in Israel was the book I.D. The stake "state of Israel", which is valuable primarily by the fact that the author illuminates the internal political picture of Israel, and also describes the consequences of certain solutions for the Government of Israel and gives a tour of the history of Israel's state and the history of Arab Israeli conflict.

The work of the authors Polyakova K.i And Khasyanova A.Z. "Palestinian National Autonomy: State Construction Experience" is devoted to the period of the formation of authorities in the Palestinian National Autonomy.

Speaking about the Palestinian-Israel conflict, it is impossible not to mention E.M. Primakova - a man who not only was engaged in studies at the Middle East, but also took direct participation in key events in this region. His book "Middle East: on stage and behind the scenes" gives information regarding the role of the Policy of the USSR Russia in the region.

Book of Palestinian researcher A. Rashabeda "Palestinian problem: history and modernity" tells about the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from the Palestinian point of view.

also in the graduation work Foreign literature was involved, since foreign sources help to obtain the most complete information about the role of the United States and Europe in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

Book W. Quanem "Peace Process: American Diplomacy and The Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967" (peace process: American diplomacy and arab - Israeli conflict) is a valuable source of information about the role of the American side in the process of Arab - Israel settlement.

Another source of information about the role of Americans in the settlement of the Middle Eastern conflict is the book S. Tracker , "The Encyclopedia of the Arab - Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History" , In which the author provides information on all aspects of Arab-Israeli confrontation.

The object of research is ethnopolitical conflict relations of the Arab-Israeli conflict that appear in historical development and modern condition as a complex and specific phenomenon of regional and world politics.

The subject of the study is the institutional aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a significant factor in its historical and present nature, which determines the specifics of the current state and the contradiction of its development.

The purpose of the study is determined by the elected object and subject matter and consists in identifying and comprehensive analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its regulatory factors in modern world.

Achieving the main objective of the study involves a decision of a number specific tasks:

analyze the history of Arab-Israeli conflict, divide the main conflict factors and problems of Arab-Israeli relations;

determine the main structural elements of the Arab-Israeli conflict in their hierarchical unity;

review the main steps historical process Arab-Israeli conflict;

determine the potential and conditions for the implementation of the regulatory functions of the Arab-Israeli conflict

The base for research is:

1.Materials from the official sites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Information Center and the archival site www.palestineinarabic.com on which official documents were posted, covering the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Administration.

.Transcripts of speeches of the parties at the negotiations that help to understand the position of the parties in the negotiations.

.Autobiographical materials written by participants of these negotiations, and persons who big influence On the course of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which provides information regarding the participation of these figures in the negotiation process and their assessment of the course of the peace process between Israel and Palestine is given.

.Articles from domestic and foreign newspapers covering the development of the Middle East settlement process.

.Collections of UN documents, as well as documents from official UN archives, which contain decisions regarding the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli settlement. These documents give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe UN role in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process.

1. Historical roots of the emergence and development of Arab-Israeli conflict

.1 Chronology of events and the political aspect of the formation of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority

arabic Israeli Historical Conflict

Palestine is a territory located in the Middle East off the coast of the Mediterranean, which has a centuries-old complex history.

Ancient times of Eastern Mediterranean, who connected Eurasia with Africa, due to a favorable climate and a favorable geostrategic situation, were the most important human habitat. It is this part of Asia after the emergence of the oldest foci of civilization, it became the center of transit links between them and played a huge role in the mutual influence of cultures - ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamsk, ancient Greek, not to mention Hetthas, Assyrians and other representatives of secondary civilizations and the states of the Middle East region. The Mediterranean lands were the arena of transit trade routes, which contributed to their accelerated development, adding large state complexes on their basis. Cities showed a tendency to strengthen and expand the periphery adjacent to them, conquering and accession of neighboring lands.

At the end of the II millennium BC. In the southwestern part of Canaan came the Philistines, moving from Asia Minor. The place of their settlement, the most fertile lands of the Mediterranean, was named pellenets, and later the whole land of Canaan received the name of Palestine. Almost simultaneously with the Philistines, in 1800 BC, an ancient Jews appeared on the territory of Palestine, which were Westernitian cattle breeding tribes, displaced from Mesopotamia. On the eve of the resettlement of the Jews in Palestine, it was a conglomerate of small cities and protorted states, actively engaged to each other. And after the appearance on the Palestinian lands of Jews, the Philistines began a fierce struggle against them. All this has quite complicated the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. And in 1600 BC. Jews move to Egypt.

Returning to Palestine at the turn of the XIII-XII centuries. BC, Jews in a long-term struggle with the local population gained its best part of it, strengthened there and turned the ancient Jerusalem to their political and religious center, forming the tribal union, called Israel. Turning into sedentary farmers, the Jews gradually assimilated a significant part. ancient population. At the same time, war with cities - states of other residents of Palestine constituted an important part of their activities, during which the first kings of Israel were stated and strengthened: Saul, David, Solomon. Later, during the fight against the Philistines, in 995. BC. The Israeli kingdom, which occupied a significant part of the Palestinian territories, and configured into two separate kingdoms - Israeli in the north of Palestine and Jewish city with the center in Jerusalem in the south (928 BC).

The contradictions between the Arabs and Jews, which brought to the direct clashes of the parties, was noticeably aggravated at the end of the 19th century, when the Jews began to realize their rights to Palestine in the form of Zionism - a religious and political movement for the revival of the Jewish people in their historical homeland.

In March 1897, the Jews of the "whole world" were invited to send delegates to the Zionist Congress in Munich. Western European Jews were resolutely against this venture. The protests were sent first from the Rabbi of Germany, and then from Munich Jews, so I had to postpone the Congress to the Swiss city Basel. 197 delegates arrived at the first international congress of the Zionists, for the most part of of Eastern Europe. Thus was founded by the World Zionist Organization (NDO), which proclaimed the Jews with a separate nation, putting a goal for her "socially recognized and legally guaranteed house."

The state of Israel appeared on the political map of the world in May 1948, however, the preparatory work on the creation of Jewish statehood was led long before. Over the past centuries, for the Jews, scattered in different countries of the world, the desire to return to the "Promised Earth", where their state was once. This movement was religious and political. At the end of the XIX - early XX century. In accordance with the Program of the First Congress of the World Zionist Organization (NDO), convened in 1897 in Palestine, the first settlements of the Jews were created. Zionism (return to Zion), an ancient movement: for the revival of the Jewish people in his historical homeland, "at that time acquired the character of a politically organized movement. Then the first Zionist appeared in Palestine political partieswho served as the basis for the formation of the future multi-party system of Israel.

In 1920, British Colonial Office was established in Palestine, which opened the wide opportunities for Zionist penetration into the country and the development of the socio-economic structure of the future state. By the end of World War II, more than 80% of the entire Palestinian industry amounted to the Jewish sector.

However, the desire of the Jewish community to national and state sovereignty came across the resistance of Palestinian Arabs. Arabs led by their religious leaders categorically refused to discuss the possibility of the Palestine section itself. Already the 30s. The fierce political confrontations and armed conflicts between the Jewish and Arab communities were noted. IN post-warEspecially in 1947, they turned into a real war that covered most of the country. In such an atmosphere, the British ruler it was forced to convey the question of the future status of the Palley we are for consideration by the UN.

november 1947, the UN General Assembly by a majority of votes (with the rarest mutual consent of the USSR and the USA) voted to abolish the English mandatory regime in Palestine in May 1948 and the creation of two independent states - Arab and Jewish. At the same time, a representative body of the Jewish population was created - the People's Council. Exactly at the time of the expiration of the British government in Palestine on the night from 14 to 15 May 1948, the People's Council held its meeting, on which one of the leading political leaders D. Ben-Gurion read the declaration of independence, proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel.

Immediately after the state proclamation, Israel of the Army in neighboring Arab countries invaded its territory. The first Arab-Israeli war began. In it, Israel, based on US help, managed not only to repel the onset of the Arab forces, but also to attach 6.7 thousand square meters to its territory. km allotted by the UN under the Arab state, as well as the western part of Ier salima. The eastern part of the city and the West Bank of the Jordan river occupied Jordan, Egypt - Gaza Strip. About 900 thousand Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave the areas of their stay, for praised by the Israelis, and go to the position of refugees in neighboring Arab countries. So together with the birth of the state, Israel arose one of the most painful problems of modernity - the Palestinian problem.

After the end of the first Arab-Israeli conflict, the foundations of statehood occurred. Almost all the quantities of the temporary government nominated by the People's Assembly were received by ministerial portfolios in the first government of Israel. The People's Assembly moved to the position of the Israeli Parliament - Knesset. Thus, there is an obvious continuity of the legislative and executive bodies of the former community and the new state.

Palestinian War 1948-1949. And its consequences. Immediately after the proclamation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948 on the territory of PA the lasty joined the troops of Transice, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Israel's war declared Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Arab states intended to stop the territorial expansion of the Zionists and prevent the implementation of the resolution of the UN General Assembly No. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (about the Palestine section). A significant role in the construction of the conflict was played by the policy of England and the United States, striving first-conservation, and the second to establish control over the strategically important area of \u200b\u200bthe Middle East.

IN initial period Military actions developed in favor of the Arab armies. By the end of May-beginning of June, the Arab Legion of Transiordania and Iraqi troops occupied a significant part of East Palestine, including the Arab sector of Jerusalem; One detachment from the Egyptian expeditionary corps has advanced to Zedududa (Ashdoda), located about 30 km south of Tel Aviv, and the other-through Bireschebu (Beer-Shev) reached the southern approaches to Jerusalem. June 11, through the mediation of the UN, a truce was achieved. Israel used him for organizational and military-technical strengthening of his forces. Despite the efforts of the UN mediatory in Palestine F. Bernadott, on July 8, military actions resumed. In the period before the second ceasefire on July 18, the Israeli troops occupied almost the entire North Palestine.

As the conflict continues, the situation of the Arab side was increasingly complicated by the action of such factors as contradictions in the Arab camp and the treacherous policy of monarchical regimes of transcendania and Egypt, which prevented coordinating military efforts, as well as the superiority of the Israeli army in organized and armament.

In response to the Britain of the King of the King of Transiceordania Abdullah, awarded to hold the eastern part of Palestine, which was held by the Arab Legion of the Eastern Palestine, in September 1948 controlled by the Egyptians in September 1948, was proclaimed the creation of a Palestinian government headed by Ahmed Hilmi. He was recognized by all members of the League of Arab States, except for transice. The latter inspired convening in Jericho National Palestinian Congress, proclaiming December 1, 1948. Abdalla palestinian role.

In mid-October 1948, Israeli troops resumed an offensive, focusing the main efforts on southern direction. By the end of December they managed to surround the part of the Egyptian troops near the city of Fallucz, to push the main forces of Egyptians to the Gaza Area and, developing an offensive in Negev, to enter the territory of Egypt. In the north of Israelis invaded Lebanon. On January 7, 1949, military actions in Palestine were discontinued.

In February-July 1949, when mediated by the UN on the island of Ro dos, temporary truce agreements were signed between Israse lem, on the one hand, and Egypt, Lebanon, Transiordania and Syria, on the other. The truce system was supposed to operate to the "final political agreement" to establish peace in Palestine. In April 1949, the Conciliation Commission on Palestine in order to resolve controversial issues convened a conference of representatives of Arab and Israel in Lausanne. The preparedness to sign the Lausanian Protocol, expressed by the Israeli side, determined as a basis for further discussions of the UN General Assembly on Palestine, was explained by the fact that at that time the question of the admission of Israel in the UN was decided. All subsequent attempts to make a conciliation commission to achieve a shift in the decision of Palestine the problems failed, primarily due to failure rail to give up the territory captured during the war and resolve re patria of refugees. The system of Rhodes agreements was thus not supported by further steps to enter into peace.

In that period, the Palestinian question included the following aspects: a territorial question, the question of the status of Jerusalem and the problem of Palestinian refugees. Most of the territory allotted for the Arab state according to the UN resolution on the section of Palestine (about 6.7 thousand square meters. Km from 11.1 thousand square meters. Km), captured Israel. The remaining Palestinian lands in accordance with the armistice agreements were supposed to proceed under the control of the lag. In July 1951, the King Abdullah, accused of secret negotiations with Israel about palestine's case, was killed in Jerusalem by a member of the Palestinian terrorist organization Al-Jihad Al-Mukaddas ("Sacred War").

Israel, not limited to the occupation during the military operations of the Western (new) part of Jerusalem, in January 1950 in violation of UN Resolution No. 181 (II), which provided for the provision of international status, announced to Jerusalem his capital and translated the Knesset and most government agencies into it .

The position of refugees was the most acute and dramatic side of the Palestinian problem.

According to the UN for June 1950, Refugees mi has become 960 thousand out of 1350 thousand Palestinian Arabs. Most of them turned out to be in the neighboring with "Israel of Palestinian territories: 425 thousand - on the West Bank. Jordan and 225 thousand - in the Gaza Strip, and the rest immediately moved to Arab countries, including 130 thousand-to-in Lebanon, 85 thousand-in Syria, more than 80 thousand-to-East Coast of Jordan.

The position of the main mass of refugees was extremely difficult: throwing houses, land and property, they were left without a bed and without any livelihood. The economy of the refugees asylum asylum countries, primarily Jordan, who made their largest number, was not able to provide even most necessary hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged people. At the first stage, they were assisted on the international committee of the Red Cross, the League of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the OOP (FAO) and a number of other international organizations, as well as established in November 1948 Special UN Fund for Palestinian Refugees. Since 1950, the UN Middle Eastern Agency for Assistance and Work Organization (UNRWA) took care of them, the decision to create the creation of which was adopted at the IV Session of the UN General Assembly in December 1949 more than 400 thousand refugees were posted in 54 special camps UNRWA (in Jordan-25 camps, in Lebanon-15, in the Gaza-8 sector and in Syria-6).

Having limited financial capabilities, UNRWA could not fully cope with the tasks of employment, social and material support of refugees. It is enough to note that in the early 60s, the cost of food soldering issued to one resident of the Palestinian camp did not exceed 7 cents per day, and Borp's housing managed to provide only 39.1% of refugees. By the claims of other sources of existence of the camps of other sources of existence were often unsuccessful. Over the years, the number of Palestinian exiles increased. As a result of natural increase (on average, 3.2% per year) and the inflow of new refugees with Israel-controlled territory by Israel by June 1967, 1345 thousand people.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a collision of two territorial entities, ethnic communities for the right to create its own monocultural country and its universal recognition. At the end of the XIX - early XX centuries, two conflicting national movements apply to Eretz Israel / Palestine emerged. One of them was Zionism. It arose on the basis of long-standing Jewish religious and historical aspirations, as well as as a response to European anti-Semitism, and developed under the influence of national movements existed in Europe. The Zionists called on the Jews to immigrate to Eretz Israel to restore the Jewish national focus in two thousand years after the destruction of the second temple and the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans. The second movement was the Arab nationalism, which also originated on the basis of European nationalism and was initiated in Beirut and Damascus by Arabs Christians. Arab nationalism originally opposed the Ottoman Empire, and then (after the First World War) - English and French colonialism. But in Palestine, where the Arab presence numbered about 1400 years, Arab nationalism immediately collided with the Zionist movement. Two people claimed the same land. Palestinians require "restoration of historical justice" and returning millions of people whom they are called refugees, on those lands, on which their ancestors lived to the first Arab-Israeli war of 1947-1949. The overwhelming majority of Israelis are convinced that such a development will turn Israel into a binary Eudy-Arab state, and, given the high birth rate in the Arab sector, in a predominantly Arab state, life in which the Jewish minority will be actually impossible. At the same time, the degree of responsibility of the parties for the tragic events that occurred in 1947-1949 remains the subject of discussion.

Given the historically arising contradictions, three forms of relations between the participants of the conflict can be distinguished: a strong world, an open large-scale war, an intermediate state characterized by outbreaks of struggle and short-term attempts to bring the opposite parties to resolve disagreements.

An open large-scale war with the participation of a significant number of forces on both sides, aimed at the final resolution of the contradictions - the phenomenon is theoretically possible, but in practice such an outcome of events seems unlikely. First, because other countries are involved in the sphere of confrontation in addition to direct participants, as which occupy the border area and are at a considerable distance from it. In the latter case, it is, above all, about the United States and Russia. The first are interested in the existence of strong independent Israel, developing cooperation with Turkey, holding back the influence of Iran. For Russia, it is also necessary to interrupt confrontational trends in order to prevent the transformation of the Arab world in the power pole. Otherwise, Iran will be forced to minimize its activity in the north, which ultimately will lead to an extremely unwanted collision of the interests of Turkey and Russia.

Secondly, at present, Palestinian autonomy does not have a sufficient degree of consolidation of forces against Israel for an open large-scale speech against Israel. Thirdly, the purpose of the final resolution of the contradictions looks unattainable.

Second theoretically possible option The resolution of the conflict is to create a strong world, and here it will be appropriate to refer to the history of Palestinian-Israeli relationships.

In 1947, the UN Plenipotentiary Commission invited the Palestine Section Plan, adopted by the Jewish community, but rejected by Palestinian Arabs. Once at once, the conditions of the proposed peace agreement became less favorable for Arabs: in 1937 they were asked to create a state for more than 80% of Palestine territory, in 1947 - by 45%, in 2000 (at the negotiations in Kemp David and In taba) - by about 21-22%. Palestinian leaders consistently rejected all these proposals, as a result of which the Palestinian Arab state was not created so far. The reluctance of the political elite of Arabs to compromise in any form, the tough position of "all - or nothing" does not leave the chance of peacefully resolve the conflict.

For Israelis, it was a war for independence. Israel is the only country ever created by solving the United Nations - considered himself as a legal successor of the rights of the Jewish people for self-determination on its historical homeland. For the Palestinians, the War of 1948 became a disaster. The Arab world considered Israel with artificial formation, based on foreign invaders who stole the Holy Arab land.

All of the above circumstances convincingly suggest that a strong world between the Palestinian and Israeli people can not be speeches. In this kind of situations, the conclusion of the world for a long time is achieved by either the full exhaustion of the forces of both parties, which is in modern international incl. Financial support of both countries is unlikely, or the destruction of one of the participants in the conflict, which again in the foreseeable future is impossible for a variety of reasons. And it makes us turn to the third potentially possible and already existing variant of the state of the relationship between two sides - the intermediate stage between the world and the war.

.2 The emergence of Arab-Israeli conflict: the causes and dynamics of its development

In early 1948, Arabs accounted for more than two thirds of the population of submanent Palestine, in their private ownership there was a majority of Palestinian lands. The demographic situation has changed radically in less than a year as a result of the mass migration of the Arab population during the first Arab-Israeli war. One of its consequences was the problem of Palestinian refugees, divided living in neighboring states and devoid of a significant part of their property.

Palestinian Arabs are not the only forced displaced people as a result of the world's redistribution in the 20th century, but their problem is unique. Making up only two percent of the total number of refugees moving around the world after World War II, they still have not changed their status. Arabs Palestine became the only community, whose fate managed the international community, tightening the solution to their problem for many decades.

In all other cases, refugees helped the governments of the states in which they were looking for asylums, the decision was either in the return of refugees to the historic homeland, or in integration in the community of those countries in which they were as a result of forced resettlement. This happened from 8.5 million Indians and Sikhs, who came to India from Pakistan; 6.5 million Muslims held in Pakistan from India; 13 million Germans transferred from Eastern Europe to Germany; Thousands of Bulgarian Turks and many other refugees, the total number of which was 4 million.

Palestinian paradox is all the more surprising, since Palestinian Arabs have a similarity of the language, religion, the level of social development and partly - national self-consciousness with the peoples of most states in which they arrived. However, the only country agreed to ensure the naturalization of Palestinian refugees was Jordan. The remaining Arab countries for decades continued to keep Palestinians on a powerful position in refugee camps.

UN, which failed to prevent the first Arab-Israeli war, faced it with a large-scale humanitarian and social problem. Hopes for a rapid settlement soon enough disappeared, the problem of Palestinian refugees every year with all the sharpness ran into the agenda, but the search for her genuine decision continues to this day. Representatives of the UN often acted as intermediaries between those who do not want to make concessions by the parties who shifted themselves with each other responsibility for what happened and rolled down on the position of mutual accusations. One of the most sharp questions, who are to blame for the expulsion of Palestinians, for what reason the Palestinians left their homes and who are responsible for this.

Disputes also conducted on the historical rights of the Jewish or Arab people to Palestine. So, according to the opinion of the Arab leaders, until the end of the First World War, its territory was an inseparable part of the surrounding Arab world. Representatives of Israel, in turn, argued that there was never such that the Jews would not live in Palestine, which was never managed by Arabs.

"Palestinian nationality" of Arab refugees also became the subject of discussions. Refugee requirements (or the Arab leaders representing their interests) were based on the fact that they are Palestinians. Consequently, as its goal, they set the return to their homeland, i.e. In Palestine, as a rule, implying his homes in Israel. Representatives of Israel in response to this claimed that the Arab refugee from Israeli Palestine was practically "returned to his homeland", if he was in the Arab Palestine (not part of Israel).

Very problematic was the question of what the number of "real" refugees from the part of Palestine, which was intended to create a Jewish state. So, UNRVA (refugee management, created on the UN initiative to assist refugees), Israel and Arab states led contradictory figures reflecting the number of refugees in 1948. The amount of compensation depended on this data. Israel officially declares that in 1948 its territory left 520 thousand people. UNRVA has registered 726 thousand refugees, and according to representatives of Palestinians, this figure reaches 900 thousand. These data were questioned by independent researchers. According to the British conducted in December 1944, the population census, in total, in the part of Palestine, at which the state of Israel was created, there were 525.500 Arabs, of which 170.430 people were in cities, and 355.070 people in rural areas. Given the fact that approximately 150 thousand people remained in Israel, and 35 thousand were returned in 1949-1956, the total number of refugees of all ages (directly refugees, not counting their children born afterwards) is just over 340 thousand people. Refugees' right to return was the most acute issues affected by discussions. On November 19, 1948, Resolution No. 212 was adopted at the UN General Assembly, in the 11 paragraph of which the basic principles reflecting the UN relation to the question of Palestinian refugees were held. The resolution said that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors," should be able to fulfill their intentions as soon as possible, and those who decide not to return, compensation will be paid for abandoned property and reimbursed the damage " In accordance with the principles of international law, "for which the governments of the states affected by the problem will be responsible.

The interpretation of the eleventh paragraph has become a constant stumbling block between the parties. The resolution said refugees wishing to "live in peace with neighbors", so the return was directly related to the establishment of the world. The wording "refugees should be allowed to return to the nearest possible term" meant that only the sovereign state of Israel can give permission to return and determine its timing.

Arabs could not accept such a condition. So, on October 14, 1955, the Egyptian Prime Minister Nasser in his interview with the American newspaper said that "the hatred of the Arabs is very strong and there is no point in talking about peace with Israel." The Arab leaders demanded that the absolute right refugees to return to those abandoned by them at home or rights to choose from between returning and receiving compensation. In its controversy with Arabic leaders A. Even, the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Israel in the UN (and later - Minister of Foreign Affairs) put forward the following arguments against the idea of \u200b\u200breturning (repatriation) of Palestinian refugees to Israel. First, he emphasized that the term "repatriation" (from the Latin "Patria" - the Motherland) is used in this regard incorrectly, since the arrival of Arab refugees from Arab lands to Naaraskan is not a return to their homeland. He said: "" Patria "is not just a geographical concept. Refugee resettlement in Israel will not be repatriation, but alienation from the Arabic society; Only the process of association with people who share national feelings, cultural heritage and the language peculiarity would become the real repatriation of the Arab refugee. "

Arab countries belonged to the Palestinians not as people and representatives of their people, but only as a weapon, with the help of which you can strike in Israel. This position was divided by a representative of the UN Office for Refugees in Jordan by Ralph Galloweem, who said: "Obviously, Arab states do not want to solve the problem of refugees. They seek to preserve it, as an open wound, as a call of the UN and weapons against Israel. Arab leaders do not care, the Palestinians will survive or die. "

As a result of the six-day war, the Israeli monitoring was established over the entire former submandate Palestine, over the territories where a significant number of independence war refugees lived. They were the Jews and Samaria occupied by Jordan in 1948, and the Gaza Strip, which was under the control of Egypt. The six-day war and its consequences gave the problem of refugees a new dimension, created new problems.

After the six-day war, a large number of Palestinians were in the territories controlled by Israel. This fact forced the Israeli administration to actually prove the effectiveness of solving the problem, which she proposed to apply earlier. The policy of the Israeli leadership in relation to the Arab refugees living on controlled territories was quite successful, while their situation improved significantly compared to the position of Palestinians living in Arab countries, moreover, the number of their conflicts with the local administration was much less than with leadership of Arab countries.

After 1967, they are increasingly beginning to speak not about Palestinian refugees, but about the Palestinian people, moving from the requirements to carry out their return to Israel to the requirements of the establishment of the Palestinian state.

The problem of refugees was discussed not only in the UN, but also within the framework of multilateral negotiations through the mediation of the United States between representatives of Israel and Arab states, and later the Palestinians themselves. So, the issue of refugee status rose at international conferences: in 1949 in Lausanne, in 1950 in Geneva, in 1951 in Paris. The discussion of the issue resumed twenty years later - in December 1973 at a conference in Geneva after the war of the Judgment Day, during the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations in September 1978 and at the Madrid Conference in October-November 1991. If the first three conferences were sent to The achievement of some progress in solving the issue of refugees, then the mention of this topic at the conferences and negotiations of the 70s - 90s had a predominantly formal value, and none of the parties expelled seriously on changing the status quo. The fracture occurred during the negotiations in Camp David in July 2000 and in Taba in January 2001, when the government of Ehud Barack expressed his willingness to go to the unprecedented concessions of the Israeli side on the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return. It is significant that the Arab representatives rejected all Israeli proposals on this issue - both half a century ago and during recent negotiations.

It is believed that the conference in Camp-David failed due to the lack of agreement on the section of Jerusalem, but in fact, the parties achieved a certain progress about Jerusalem. In his article "The problem of refugees in peaceful conferences, 1949-2000" Shelley Frid argues that the focus on the question of Jerusalem was necessary, "to avoid the conclusion that they cannot achieve progress in solving the problem of refugees."

After the failure in Camp David, an additional conference between the two parties without mediation of the United States took place in Taba in January 2001. The main theme that was discussed at this meeting was the "right to return" by the Palestinians. The work of the Subcommittee, headed by Yoshi Beilin, representing Israel, and Nabili Shahaat from Palestinians, however, also did not lead to the signing of the Agreement.

At negotiations in Taba, some progress was made regarding future refugees. Palestinians showed a certain flexibility in solving the problem, which could open the horizons for serious negotiations, which would not be affected by the pre-election interests of representatives of both parties. According to different reports, the tab was able to find such a formulation that allowed Palestinians not to abandon the right to return along with the agreement that in practice the decision will be the resettlement of refugees not in Israel. However, the overall failure of negotiations in taba did not allow this plan to check.

Palestinian refugees are a unique political and social phenomenon. The problem has long been beyond the framework of the arrangement and resettlement of people deprived of their homes during hostilities, and affects greater ethnic community, whose members are descendants of refugees, a whole people who have no state.

The main obstacle to the conflict settlement was the so-called "refugee right to return." If it was originally a question of the "Million" of Palestinians, then over the past fifty years, their number has increased significantly. Obviously, it is now impossible to "return" to the territory of Israel 4 million people who also have no historical memory about him. For the third generation of refugees born in the camps of Gaza and the Eastern Shore, Israel is not homeland. Israel one no longer cope with this problem, and before the world community now is the question of the status of the whole people.

For specialists dealing with the problems of the Middle East, the fact that water, and not only oil is one of the hidden driving forces of endless conflicts in the region. It is the distribution of water, and not land can be called one of the most probable reasons next war. It is assumed that by 2025 approximately 2/3 of the world's population - about 5.5 billion people - will live in areas encountered with a lack of water.

The leaders of Middle Eastern countries unanimously recognize that the problem of water supply in its impact on the modern and promising development of the region acquires a priority value and becomes more important in terms of positions than oil. According to experts, by 2030, only 5 of the 19 states of the region will be able to meet their needs in water. In the light of the nonresistance of Arab-Israeli conflict, the question of the distribution of water resources acquires one of the key values.

Speaking of water resources, one cannot forget about one of the most important factors affecting the dynamics of their demand and suggestions, namely about the growth of the population. It should be noted that the issue of water supply occupied one of the main places in the strategic plans of the Zionist movement almost from the very beginning of its origin. Back in 1919, one of the leaders of Zionism Him Weizman in a letter to the English Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote: "The supply of Palestine with water should occur from the slopes of Mount Hermon, from the Verkhovyev r. Jordan and the Litani River in Lebanon ... "In the same 1919, in the message of English Laborists D. Ben-Gurion stressed:" It is required that the water sources on which the future of the country will not be outside the borders of the Jewish national focus. We insist that Eretz Israel include the South Coast of Litania and the Haurani district. The country is in dire need of the main rivers of this land - Farmuk, Litania and Jordan. " From the above statements it can be seen that the issue of water resources concerned not only the economic future state, but also appeared to one of the aspects of national security.

A detailed study of the problem of water resources in the view of the Middle Eastern conflict provides grounds to assert that the policy of the Israeli government during the Arab-Israeli wars was aimed at accessing water, which previously had Arab states. Thus, as a result of the war of 1948, the "six-day war" of 1967, the October war of 1973 and Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 1982, Israel received control over a significant part of the water resources of the Jordan River, as well as above its underground and groundwater . It should be noted that in the occupied territory, all water resources were taken under the full state control of the Israeli authorities and began to be considered as state-owned facilities. As a result, the consumption of water by the Arab population declined sharply. In addition, water prices established by the Israeli authorities increased 4 times. In the Syrian-Israeliief, the main strategic object is the Golan heights. From the main height of the Golan Mountain Hermon take its beginning the main northern tributaries r. Jordan: Banias River, Dan and Hasbani. Although the Square of Golan is only 1% of Syria's territory, they account for 14% of the controlled Syrian water reserves. As a result of the occupation of Israel in 1967, parts of the Golan Heights The situation with water use changed dramatically. Started by the Israeli authorities, active settlement policy led to the emergence of Israeli settlements on the Golan, whose residents needed to provide access to water. As a result, from the first days of occupation, Israel has established hard control over the distribution of water. For the Arab residents of Golan, a ban on landing various types of fruit trees was introduced, they were forced to destroy a significant number of reservoirs (from the previously existed 400 today, only 3-4 were preserved), they turned out to be almost completely cut off from the largest natural reservoir of the Golan - Oz. Ram. Lack of water led to the fact that the Arab population of the Golan Heights collided with serious irrigation and sanitary problems. The situation was so poorly that many residents of Arab villages were forced to leave this territory (in 20 years of occupation, the number of Arab residents decreased 10 times: from 100 to 10 thousand people).

On the Lebanese-Israeli destination is a vital water resource is the Litani River. It was she who became a motive for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in March 1978 ("Operation of Litani") and in June 1982 ("Mir Galilee").

The following facts suggest that one of the goals of Israel in his wars with Arabs was to provide a country with water resources, and this goal was achieved. Approximately 67% of Israel's water resources comes from 1967 to 1982 of the Arab Land. Of these, 43% fall on South Lebanon, 35% - to the West Bank of the Jordan River and the remaining 22% - on the Golan heights.

Israel's occupation of the Arab territory has led to the emergence of a huge number of economic and political problems. The question of fairly redistribution of water resources in the region is an integral part of any problem that exists between Israel and Arab countries.

"Water Question" in the Palestinian-Israeli direction led to the participation of a number of agreements: Declaration on the principles of the organization of temporary self-government ("Oslo 1"), signed on September 13, 1993, the Cairo Agreement (Gaza-Jerichon) of May 4, 1994 . And the Tab Agreement (Oslo 2 ") of September 28, 1995 was created by the Palestinian Water Supply Office, an agreement was reached on joint management of the water use process. According to the Cairo Agreement, water management in the Gaza and Jericho sector was transferred under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Administration. Nevertheless, not all issues related to water use were resolved through the signing of the above agreements. It was assumed that the signing of a final status agreement would become the final stage in the field of water distribution between Israel and the Palestinians. However, the coagulation of the Madrid process and the new wave of tension on the Palestinian-Israeli direction reduced the previously achieved arrangements, questioned the effectiveness of any attempts of a peaceful settlement.

The problem of water resources in the region remains a stumbling block in relations between Israel and Arab States.

Compared to other aspects of the Arab-Israeli territorial disputes, Jerusalem's problem is significantly more internationalized primarily in terms of involvement in the United Nations situation. If formally follow the letter of resolutions 181 and 303 of the UN General Assembly, Jerusalem is a territory that should be under the Office of the UN Institutions. Consequently, the UN carries (or must bear) a special responsibility for this city. Jerusalem is the territory alienated by Israel from the UN, and this circumstance makes this organization not just an observer and a mediator, but a direct member of the conflict. For the period from 1947 to the present, the UN adopted a lot of documents created around Jerusalem a complex and controversial legal field, which should be focused on the compilers of peacekeeping plans and which - directly or indirectly - has a great influence on the position of both Israel and Palestinians.

The resolution of the UN General Assembly No. 181 adopted on November 29, 1947 recommended to allocate Jerusalem and its surroundings to a special unit - Corpus Separatum under the direction of UN institutions. Throughout the period of the British mandate in the Western Christian world, the desire to keep Jerusalem was obvious. This was due, firstly, the perception of Jerusalem as the religious and historical patrimony of the Christian world. Secondly, the concerns that in the case of the transition of Jerusalem under the control of any of the Middle East countries, access to holy places in the city will be difficult. The allocation of Jerusalem into an independent unit under international control was perceived as the best solution to the issue after the care of the British. In addition, the Corpus Separatum principle was supported by the Vatican, and the great powers, especially the United States, were forced to reckon with the religious feelings of their own Catholics, as well as with the position of the Catholic states in which they wanted to preserve political influence.

The Soviet position in Palestine was, first of all, in the demand of the early care of the British and the transfer of the decision of Palestine's fate in the UN's hands, which should have become the beginning of the Soviet expansion in the region. In parallel, Moscow tried to counteract the rapid growth of American influence. The future of Jerusalem was interested in the Soviet leadership only in this context.

In the West, the religious component in approaches to the problem of Jerusalem was most pronounced in the position of Catholic states. Historically, Catholics constituted a minority among the Christian residents of Jerusalem. In this situation, the main visa of the Vatican was the presence of a wide fraction of Catholic countries. On April 15, 1949, PAP PAP XII issued encyclical about Palestine, in which every Catholic was prescribed to make every effort to internationalize Jerusalem.

The pragmatic political interests of the United States in Jerusalem added from the following considerations:

The gradual realization that the preservation of Jerusalem under the control of the UN will require the intervention of military peacekeeping forces and serious financial injections. At the same time, the United States did not have the desire to take responsibility for themselves for the first or second.

The desire to prevent the Soviet influence in Jerusalem.

The UN members who made the idea of \u200b\u200bterritorial internationalization practically did not try to implement it. On February 16, 1948, the UN Commission on Palestine reported the Security Council that he would not be able to fulfill his duties after the end of the British mandate without the help of military force. The UN has carried the full responsibility for the prevention of hostilities in Jerusalem, but neither before nor after the said statement of the UN adopted any serious measures to protect the city. The UN threatened to resolve the issue of the implementation of the Corpus Separatum principle, about the protection of the population of Jerusalem and holy places.

Until now, only one document is adopted, where the problem of Jerusalem is addressed - the "Road Card" plan. The text states that in the third stage, which is called "Achieving an agreement on the final settlement and the completion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict", the Second International Conference will be convened. Her goals - "Approval of an agreement on the establishment of the Palestinian state in the time boundaries and the official principle of the process with active, consistent and operational support of the Quartet, which will lead to the achievement of the final settlement agreement in 2005, including questions about the boundaries, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements, as well as the speedy achievement of a comprehensive settlement with Syria and Lebanon. " This formulation looks very vague. On the one hand, as follows from the name of the third stage, the decision of the issue of Jerusalem is considered as an element of the settlement of the bilateral Palestinian-Israeli conflict. On the other hand, the question of Jerusalem is linked to the International Conference and even with the achievement of the Israeli-Syrian and Israel-Livanic settlement. Of course, it is already obvious that nothing like this in 2005 has happened, but the "road map" is still formally considered by the Quartet, including the UN, as the main settlement plan, even with the changed deadlines.

2. Arab-Israeli conflict in a multipolar world order era

.1 efforts of the world community to resolve the conflict

On June 24, 2002, US President George Bush made a speech that marked the beginning of the introduction of a new plan for the settlement of the Middle East crisis based on the principles, the effectiveness and necessity of which was confirmed by many years of practice. For example, a new plan is based on UN Security Council resolution 242 and 338, adopted in the process of peaceful settlement. Their essence lies in the following requirements: 1) the cessation of fire, 2) inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by war, 3) confirmation of the need to bring the Israeli troops from the occupied territories, 4) a fair solution to the problem of refugees, 5) the need to terminate all claims or state of war and respect and respect The recognition of the territorial integrity, the political independence of each state in the Middle East region and the right to live in the world, in safe and recognized boundaries, without threatening the strength or its use.

Major points plan:

) This plan implies "International Control" for its implementation, it will be carried out by EU, USA, Russia, the UN;

) The settlement of the process is divided into three stages, as a result of the completion of which in the West Bank of Jordan and in the Gaza sector by 2005 will be formed by a permanent state of Palestine.

The name "Road Map" Document did not accidentally: its stages are peculiar segments on the way to a peaceful settlement, and the transitional moments from one stage to another are peculiar road signs or kilometer columns.

Stage: Palestinians are required to create a new Cabinet of Ministers, introduce the post of prime minister, refuse actions in support of terror in relation to Israelis. When Palestinians have new leaders, new laws and new security measures for their neighbors, the United States will support the creation of a Palestinian state, the borders of which and the individual aspects of sovereignty will be temporary, until the final settlement will come in the Middle East.

From the Israelis you need to destroy settlements created during the rule of A. Sharon, to bring troops from the territories that they occupied after the uprising, started in 2000, and suspend construction in Israeli settlements.

Stage: Efforts are focused on creating an independent Palestinian state with temporary boundaries, sovereignty attributes are determined. In this form, the state will play the role of an intermediate station on the way to a permanent settlement

Stage: Agreement on the constant status and the end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The transition to the third stage will be carried out on the basis of the "four" consensus and taking into account the results of the monitoring conducted by both parties. The objectives of the third stage are the continuation of reforms, strengthening Palestinian institutes, the implementation of security obligations, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at achieving a constant status agreement during 2005.

The various aspects of the "Road Card" plan caused a huge number of contradictions not only between opposing Arabs and Israelis. Even in the very "Middle East Quartet" there are friction on a number of issues. The first of them was manifested immediately after the June speech by J. Bush and his statements that the United States will support the creation of a Palestinian state only, provided that "the Palestinian people will have new leaders, new security institutions and a new organization of security measures with neighboring states." It was obvious that the meaning of the unacceptability of Yasser Arafat as the leader of the PNA and the participant of future negotiations about the world was invested in this statement. However, despite all the hostility of the American president, to this person, Russia, the EU and the UN recognized Arafat the only legally elected leader of the Palestinian people and believed that only the Palestinian people were in the right to choose their heads.

The European Union stands for the immediate termination of Israel for the construction of new settlements without prior conditions. The United States, continuing to adhere to the traditional opinion that the settlements are the main obstacle to the world, nevertheless agree with the Israeli position, which cannot be frozen their construction, while the terrorist attacks on the Palestinians are continuing.

Undoubtedly, among the participants of the Quartet, the consent regarding the implementation of the "Road Map" plan is more than inside any other Party interested in the Middle Eastern settlement, and in solving controversial issues, they most often come to consensus. For example, the US refusal from an official statement about the removal of Arafat from the position of the head of the Palestinian Authority, but in return to the decision of the Quartet's decision to reduce the authorities of the leader and the introduction of the post of Prime Minister. "As a result of the effort, it was possible to formulate a proposal, which includes a very complex balance of interests of the parties to the conflict," said Russian Foreign Minister I. Ivanov.

The opinion of the Israelis relative to the "roadmap" can also be called one. According to the results sociological surveysconducted within the framework of the project of a peaceful settlement, it turned out that about 20% of the entire Jewish population of Israel is categorically against any kind of peace agreements with Arabs, and half of those who recognize the roadmap plan as one of the probable settlement paths, believes that he is just will not bring results.

On the issue of Palestinian refugees, the Israelis insist on a limited return of them to the former place of residence, motivating this statement very simple mathematical estimates. In Israel, there are 5.1 million Jews and about 1.26 million Arabs. If all refugees return home, the Arab population will increase about 6 million people, and this will mean the actual end of the Jewish national state.

The plan announced a limited number of Palestinian refugees, having legal right to return home, and according to Palestinians, each refugee is entitled to return. This statement of the Palestinians also confirm that the Jews have the right to return to its historical homeland after more than 2000 years, the Arabic population left these territories just a few decades ago and is also quite eligible for return.

In the settlement of the Middle Eastern conflict, it is impossible to bypass the position of the position of the surrounding Israel and Palestine countries. The first group is Jordan and Egypt, the position of which is oriented, mainly in the United States. At the moment, these countries are located with Israel in the state of the world, their recognition of Israel as the state took place and officially enshrined. Their main task is to convince the Israelites and Palestinians to take the "Road Map" plan in its original form, it is about pushing only Israel to adopt, because For Palestinians, in the eyes of these countries, the plan is more profitable. Jordan supports it without making any significant changes. The second group of countries is Lebanon and Syria. In their opinion, the "Road Map" is just another US attempt to introduce the situation in the Middle East into a favorable direction. While the United States will offer plans, Palestinians will not have the opportunity to speak with Israel on equal.

Nowadays, the objective reality is that actually going in the Gaza sector and threatening to spread to the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Civil War gradually turns from the "ideological" conflict between "secular nationalists" from Fatah and "Islamic radicals" from Hamas to an armed confrontation between various trabalist , communal and clan and religious-sectarian groups, of which, in essence, and consists of local Arab-Palestinian society.

It is already clear that the experiment on the rapid consolidation of these groups of various origin into something remotely resembling a single community failed, "Palestinian nation" is not. From this it follows the impossibility of occurrence in Palestinian territories in the foreseeable future regarding the sustainable regime, with which the dialogue could be conducted according to the World Scheme in exchange in the territory, and Israel can hardly be separated from Palestinian Arabs in one way or another by providing themselves To deal with your problems, while maintaining a relatively peaceful status quo.

Today, not only the Israeli right, but also many representatives of the left flank of Israeli politics, as well as most of the centrists believe that the events occurring in the "territories" are completely capable of at all withdrawing the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Palestinian state from the agenda. Nevertheless, representatives of the Palestinian Authority continue to contacts with representatives of the World Community: February 19, 2007. The Israeli Prime Minister E. Olmert was held in Jerusalem, the heads of PNA M. Abbas and US Secretary of State K. Rice. It did not have any specific results on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Meeting participants confirmed the former agreements and agreed on a new round of negotiations. A week later M. Abbas visited the United Kingdom, Germany and France. The main goal of his trip was to receive support to the national unity to the Palestinian government and removal of blockade from the Palestinian territories. In London, the British Prime Minister T. Blair said that it is possible to progress in the Middle Eastern settlement, appealing to the "reasonable" members of Hamas. In Berlin, German Chancellor A. Merkel welcomed the creation of the Palestinians of the Coalition Government, but at the same time, on behalf of the European Union, he emphasized that the new office should refuse terrorism, recognize Israel and all previously prisoners of Palestinian-Israeli agreements. In Paris, M. Abbas asked President of France to speak by an intermediary in establishing negotiations between the New Palestinian Government and Israel. France promised to cooperate with the Coalition Palestinian government. A foreign trip with the aim of obtaining support to the formable government of national unity committed the leader Hamas H. Mashav. On February 22, the next meeting of the international "quartet" in the Middle Eastern settlement was held in Berlin. Its participants confirmed that the new Palestinian government must be committed to the requirements of the international community.

In the period from March 26 - to April 1, 2007, the most important events in the region were associated with the next (XIX) summit of the Lag member countries in Er-Riyadh (March 28-29) and Iran. The meeting of the Supreme Heads of Arab States has been confirmed by the Saudi plan of Arab-Israeli settlement from 2002.

The main outcome of the Obserrabic Summit in Er-Riyade was unanimous confirmation by its participants in the commitment of a peaceful settlement plan with Israel at a top meeting in Beirut in 2002. As you know, this document provides for the care of Israel from all Arab territories captured in 1967, recognition They are an independent Palestinian state with the capital in East Jerusalem and a fair solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees (the right to return to the previous places of their residence). In response, Arabs undertake to recognize Israel, sign peace agreements with him and establish normal relations. The plan, according to Arabs, should become a "platform for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East". In Er-Riyadh, Israel called on "to accept the Arab initiative and take advantage of the opportunity to resume direct negotiations in all directions." A special commission has been established as part of Egypt, Jordan, UAE and Saudi Arabia, which should establish contacts with the UN Secretary General, members of the UN Security Council, the international "quartet" on the Middle East settlement (RF, USA, UN) and other stakeholders. The purpose of the contacts is the resumption of the peace process and providing support for the Arab Initiative. The Summit Decisions on the BWU supported Russia, the European Union, UN Secretary-General. The US regarded them as an attempt to "go to contacts with Israel" and "act constructively in the interests of all powers in the region." Israel reacted to the Summit solutions with very careful optimism, but, as before, do not agree with the requirement of the right to return refugees to the previous place of residence.

In general, the results of the ER-Riyadian meeting showed the desire of Arab countries to shift the process of resolving the conflict with Israel from the dead point, try to overcome the disagreement available in the Arab world by dialogue and restoring mutual trust, to give a new impetus to Arab solidarity.

The UN, the European Union, the United States and Russia are the participants of the Quartet in the Middle Eastern settlement, but the role of each of them is far in ambiguous. The main weakness of Europe is that today it is not a fairly recognized acting person, which can promote peace and which the parties trust. There are several obstacles to the EU effective shared foreign policy in the Middle East and, in particular, in relation to Israel.

Prior to the appointment of the Messenger from the EU in 1996 in the Middle Eastern affairs, Europe was torn by hidden rivalry of countries among themselves, rooted in various historical experience. Today's foreign policy that does not move the boundaries of relations between EU members, will not be able to turn the EU into active, influential, valuable actor. Representatives from European countries in the region are practically not heard, they are not remembered by their activities or statements. This is partly due to the principle of functioning of European institutions - changing presidency in foreign affairs. Responsible persons change constantly and quite often, which harms the effectiveness of activities. While American representatives in the Middle East surround themselves with the press and speak a lot publicly, European representatives are held in the shade. But the image concerns not only the media. This is also the result of activity in the field of education. It should be noted that in European universities there are very few centers for the study of the problems of the Middle East. Constant care for American support or following US initiatives. Fearing to cause America's discontent, Europeans are often followed in the fairway of her policies, even when it contradicts their own interests.

The internal situation in Europe does not have a good relationship with Israel: about 10% of the population of Maghreb countries live in Europe. Of these, 3 million people are in France alone. About 2 million Turks live in Germany, of which at least 400 thousand are ethnic Kurds. This creates an influential lobby in European countries. The role of therapy lobbying groups in Europe is relatively weak. In Europe, where Jewish and other products are less numerous, less influential than in the United States, there is no Israeli lobbying pressure on power.

Geographical proximity causes Europe's interest in a peace process. Europe is subject to the consequences of underdevelopment and instability in the Middle East, terrorism, illegal immigration, smuggling, as well as more dangerous manifestations, including the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Progress in the Arab-Israeli negotiations is not the final, but necessary condition for eliminating all these threats.

After the European countries in the 1970s turned out to be a terror zone of Palestinians, most of the continental European governments look at this day to how their policies can be perceived by radical elements in the Arab world.

Europe is also more dependent on energy imports from the Middle East. European countries, with the exception of Great Britain and Norway (which have their own oil reserves), depend on the import of oil by 50%. And a large proportion of this import comes from the Middle East and North Africa. Although oil sources can be changed, the majority of Europe's dependence on energy imports determines its interest in ensuring stability in the Arab world until today.

In theory, the EU has sufficient size, wealth, military potential and interest in the peace process to be the same mediator as the United States. In practice, the EU Messenger represents tens of nations of different weights, with different prospects, various purposes, different historical experience. Many countries consider the scope of foreign policy of personal interest in the sphere of their sovereignty to the scope of foreign policy.

The difference between European states follows from their geographical location, culture and historical role in the region. The Britain has historically developed warm relations and close trade relations with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman, as well as it, unlike its European partners, does not depend on oil imports. France is experiencing special "related" feelings and responsibility for Lebanon with his Christian minority, and sympathy for Iraq, where France has long supported the secular regime Baas. Italy has special trade relations with Libya, thanks to which she gets a large number of Oil. In addition, it is especially subject to the influx of refugees and immigrants from Arab countries. Germany has a special relationship with Israel since the time of the Holocaust, as well as the Netherlands have historical ties with Israel, which they have long supported stronger than their other European partners. Greece, due to ties with the Arab world, relationships with Israel deteriorate more and more as Israel's strategic partnership with Turkey, historical opponent of Greece.

Difficulties in the EU with a general effective Middle Eastern policy - first of all the result of various views and interests of the most important members. These problems are exacerbated by the inability of the EU institutional structures to develop a single approach where it does not exist.

In the light of the listed facts we can conclude: the European Union is not always one in his foreign Policy in relation to the Middle East. There are countries more and less support to support and cooperation with Israel for various reasons. But in general, you can allocate some general trends. In the field of the peace process of Israel, with Palestinians for European countries, an increasing desire to take part in the negotiations is characterized, since the role of the sponsor and a third-party observer arranged far from all. In the economic sphere, however, an interest in both the benefits of economic and scientific cooperation with Israel and the prospects for cooperation in the Middle East region as a whole are noticeable. And although the idea of \u200b\u200bcooperation at the moment is clearly untenable, in 1994-2000. Some steps were made in order for the parties to get used to meet and negotiate about their economic relations. However, pan-European trends are gradually inclined not to the side of Israel. Both in France and in Germany, with the departure of the Holocaust generation, public opinion condemns Israel's policies.

october 2003 The UN General Assembly at its 10th Emergency Special Session approved a resolution requiring Israel to "stop building and dismantle the" safety wall "in the occupied Palestinian territory."

This resolution was adopted after a week before the United States imposed a veto to the UN Security Council resolution, which was proposed to condemn the construction of an Israel of a barrier wall. As you know, in the Genasemabile, the veto is not valid. Unlike UN Security Council resolutions, UN Resolution is not obligatory, but they reflect the relations of the world community to a particular international event. The resolution voted 144 UN member, against - 4 (USA, Israel, Marshall Islands and Micronesia), 12 countries abstained.

The main claims of the gesensembly were reduced to the fact that the line of the wall under construction does not coincide with the so-called green feature and actually annexes Palestinian lands, including the territory of East Jerusalem. In response to these accusations, the Israeli Prime Minister A. Sharon said that the "terror built the wall" and that the protective wall is a temporary step to which Israel went for the prevention of terrorist attacks for the period to the full political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

february 2004. Fifteen judges of the International Court have heard the opinion of only one side - Palestinian and Arabic. The first meeting of the court was opened by the speech of the head of the delegation of the Palestinian National Administration, Palestine Ambassador to the UN H. Al-Kidva, who actually urged the International Commonwealth to impose sanctions on Israel. N. Al-Kidva stated that the construction of the wall "enshrines the occupation and creates a threat to the peaceful decision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The Secretary General of the League of Arab States A. Musa in his speech noted that "the construction of the wall, as a result of which Palestinians lose 40% of the territory of the West Bank, is an unprecedented violation of generally accepted legal norms."

Palestinians believe that the construction of a separation wall symbolizes the "alienity of the Zionist formation in the Middle East" and, accordingly, the inability of Israelis integrate into this region. According to the representatives of the Palestinian government, Israel decided to boycott the International Court because "he will not be able to defend its position, which is nothing more than the manifestation of racism." According to the representative of the Palestinian leadership S. Ericat, the separation wall is an intentional attempt of the Israeli government to sabotage the Bush plan to create a Palestinian state, undermine the peace process and destroy the "roadmap". Palestinians say that they do not object to the construction of Israel of the separation wall along the Green Line or in Israeli territory.

In addition, Palestinians claim if Israel continues its plans for the construction of the wall, the leadership of the PNA will consider the possibility of proclamation of the independence of Palestine. However, it is difficult to imagine how such a "patchwork state", created on the isolated Palestinian territories of the West Shore, intermitted with the Jewish settlements. (On the West Bank, there are 75 Israeli settlements in which about 300 thousand Israelis lives).

During the tour in mid-February 2004, Prime Minister A. Kurei in European countries in order to obtain moral support for the Palestinian position on the construction of a "security wall", no leader of European states expressed its approval of Tel Aviv's actions. Thus, the head of the Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II stated that "mutual understanding on the Holy Land needs forgiveness, and not revenge, bridges, not the walls." The EU Supreme Representative, H. Solana, said that the construction of the "security walls" and the expropriation of Palestinian possessions under its construction on the West Bank "do not comply with the norms of international law".

Many international humanitarian and human rights organizations have condemned the construction of a protective wall in Palestinian territories. A week before the start of hearings in the International Court in the Hague on the legitimacy of the Israeli Separation Wall, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appealed to Israel with a call "Do not plan and not to build a separation barrier in the occupied territories."

As Israeli author A. Yeldar notes, "As a result of the construction of the system of separation walls, the Palestinians will become prisoners in their own country, quite dependent on the goodwill of the occupation authorities, drunk, as a cattle, to the corrupted wire, from where they will not come out without special pass. This is the Middle Eastern version of apartheid, conceived and carried out by A. Sharon. Thus, the purpose of the wall structure is not to separate the West Bank from Israel, and drive the Palestinians to the reservation. " Since in such conditions it is almost impossible to exist normally, this will eventually lead to the resettlement of Palestinians to other countries. According to Israeli researchers, Alhasi and A. Bdeirl, "Palestinian society risks remain without people and leave the dream of independence."

The leading Arab countries unanimously condemned the construction of the "Racist Disconnecting Wall" by Israel. Foreign Minister Saudi Arabia Prince Saud Al-Faisal During a press conference on February 10, 2004 in Er-Riyadh qualified the construction of the wall as an attempt to change the status quo and divide Palestine on the cantons. He called on the United States and the world community to immediate interference to put an end to the unilateral actions of Israel. One of the few Arab leaders who supports the Dialogue with the Israeli leadership, the Jordanian King Abdullah II during a meeting in Amman in mid-February 2004 with the former Israeli Prime Minister Sh. Perez once again condemned the construction of the "Disconnecting Wall", noting that noting that "She creates a threat to Jordan and the future independent Palestinian state."

The position of the US president regarding disconnecting turned out to be quite defined. From time to time, representatives of the American administration did "comments" to the Israeli government regarding the possible negative impact of the disconnecting wall on the education process in the future of an independent Palestinian state. However, during one of the meetings with A. Sharon J. Bush reported the following: "We must negotiate to make sure that the wall will give the correct signal to the Palestinians."

Obviously, the construction of the "protective wall" creates a new realization, a new additional obstacle to the path of Israel-Palestinian settlement and education of an independent Palestinian state.

The positions of the participants of the Quartet, created to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are quite contradictory and uncertain. The European Union is an association of states having different views on the ways of resolving Middle Eastern disagreements. The United States of America, positioning itself as the most active participant in the peacekeeping process, however, they are taken either approve actions, directly or indirectly aimed at exacerbation of contradictions (as it was in the case of the construction of a separation wall). The activities of the United Nations adopted by the resolution significantly complicated the situation with the definition of the final status of Jerusalem. As for the Russian Federation, it will be appropriate to refer to the review of Russia's foreign policy, approved by V.V. Putin in 2007

"Political and diplomatic settlement of crisis situations, especially in the Middle and Middle East, has no reasonable alternative, is stated in the document. - Russia cannot join the ultimatums who are drunk everyone in a dead end, create new crises in the already seriously destabilized region, strike on the authority of the UN Security Council. The use of force in order to coercion to the world should be an exceptional measure to which the international community can resort to strict accordance with the UN Charter if all other conflict resolution is exhausted. "

The root cause of the problems faced by the countries of the Middle East, the non-marketability of the Arab-Israeli conflict is called. And efforts to unlock the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remain among the priorities of the Russian Middle East Policy. "Russia sees his task that Israel's leadership, PNA and Arab states adopt the right decisions aimed at stopping confrontation and translation. conflict situations in the channel of political settlement. There is no realistic alternative to the "four" as a mechanism of collective external influence on the situation in the BVE and it is necessary to promote its effectiveness and efficiency. "

As a basis for decision-making is called 242, 338, 1397 and 1515 UN Security Council resolutions, it is proposed to convene an international conference in the Middle East, emphasizes the need for an integrated approach, involvement in international efforts to resolve all stakeholders, including Syria and Iran.

The ultimate goal is considered to develop a regional security system in the Middle East with the participation of all countries in the region, which would include ensuring equal guarantees of military security, the establishment of a zone free from nuclear weapons.

2.2 Arab-Israeli conflict in the light of the activation of international terrorism

Palestine's colonization by international Zionist organizations and followed after education in 1948 by Israel by Arab-Israeli wars. With the consent of the British government, set forth in the so-called "letter of Balfura" (1917), the World Zionist Organization (NDA) in the 20s. Xx in. It began to buy land in Palestine and expanding the emigration of Jews in order to prepare the conditions for creating Israel in the Palestinian territory.

The emerging confrontation between the Palestinians and the Jews in the subsequent turned into an armed confrontation. The Jewish community appeared the Organization "Irgun" and "Stern", which began to terrorist activities not only against the local population, but also against English institutions in Palestine and their staff. For example, in April 1948, the militants "Irgun" carried out a massive killing of the population in the captured by the Arab village of Deir-Yasin, shot 254 of its inhabitant. In 1940-1945 Jewish terrorists were killed in the Cairo of the British Minister for the Middle East Acts of Lord Moutien; Attempts to kill Prime Minister A. Idena and commanded by English troops in Palestine E. Barker with miniature explosive devices mounted in postal departments, etc.

The terrorist attacks against the British were to force the British authorities to cancel the restrictions established by them on the entry of Jews in Palestine. The activity of "Irgun" and "Stern" was sent by an illegally established by the Jewish Agency (EA) of the intelligence service followed by the name "Old Mossad".

EA leaders, ignoring the UN decision, unilaterally proclaimed on May 15, 1948. The creation of the state of Israel, which led to an armed confrontation between the Palestinians and Israelis, which soon turned into the first Arab-Israeli war.

About 1 million Palestinians were forced to emigrate into neighboring Arab countries. In their environment, various orientation of Palestinian organizations that were united in one - with the help of all means, including terrorism, destroy Israel and create their own state in Palestine.

Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, providing Palestinian organizations support and assistance, sought to use the latter in their political plans. The emergence of Israel was extremely negatively perceived in the Muslim world. The founder of the Egyptian Organization "Brothers-Muslims" Hasan Al-Bunny called the appearance of the Jewish state "Penetration of Zionism in Palestine and the challenge of the Arab nation and Islam".

Strengthening since the 20s. XX century, US expansion in the Middle and Middle East. Versailles Agreement (January 1920) provided the United States great opportunities To start their expansion in the region, especially since the Middle East began to turn into the center of global oil production. In 1924, the United States on the basis of the US-English Agreement became co-owners of the League of the League of Nations on the Office of Palestine, and in 1948, American troops were already introduced into Lebanon under the pretext of "security in the region". The Middle Eastern policy of the United States, largely focused on consolidating the strategic partnership with Israel, contributed to the fact that the anti-American orientation has become increasingly to occupy the leading place in the aspirations and actions of the terrorist organizations of the region.

The rise of the Islamic radicalism of the fundamentalist orientation. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the formation of an ideological vacuum in the Middle and Middle East, which began to quickly fill in various kinds of concepts, which are based on the constructs of radical Islam.

The basis of Islamic radicalism, including Wahhabism, is a provision on the Taffier (the accusation of disbelief) and the doctrine of Jihad (sacred war for faith).

Israel and the United States are announced as the main opponents of the radical Islam. The spiritual mentor of the Iranian "Islamic Revolution" R. Khomeini was very figuratively argued: "If every Muslim will take off the water bucket into Israel, the flood will destroy this Zionist state."

Islamic radicals oppose the expansionist policy of Israel, against the suppression of the Palestinian people speeches, requiring the creation of their own independent state. The anti-American orisal radicalism is due to the protest of the International Islamic Community Westernization of Life in Muslim countries, as well as the fact that the United States is constantly acting as an ally of Israel and carry out permanent interference in the internal affairs of Islamic countries, while pursuing their selfish goals. Islamist trends have become a permanent factor of public life in Arab countries and the stronger the degree of westernization, the stronger the public protest in Muslim countries, the more active the processes of the formation of a radical opposition, its participation in the speeches against the ruling regimes.

Failure of the Middle Eastern settlement (BVE). Under the concept of "Middle Eastern settlement" (BVE), it is customary to be a peaceful settlement for a long time The preserving Arab-Israeli conflict, whose core is a Palestinian-Israeli confrontation on the ways to create an independent Palestinian state as part of the Gaza and West Bank of the Jordan River.

Palestinians' right to form their own states is enshrined in the relevant UN solutions, as well as international treaties, including in the Palestinian-Israeli "Declaration and Intermediate Settlement Principles", signed in Oslo (Norway) in 1993.

Israel's refusal from the implementation of these agreements and the use of the Armed Forces to suppress the speeches of the Palestinians led to the uprising ("Initifare") of the Palestinians (December 1987) and new shares in early 2000 ("Intifada-2"), which took a wide range They led to the participation of the armed formations of Palestinian organizations and the intensification of their terrorist activities against the military personnel and the civilian population of Israel.

The most active resistance of the Israelis is met by the extremist Islamic organizations "Islamic Movement of Resistance" (Hamas) and "Islamic Jihad", who advocate on the establishment of the Islamic State Palestine.

Israeli authorities carry out mass arrests among the participants of the uprising, resort to the shootings of rallies and demonstrations, bombings of administrative institutions of the Palestinian National Autonomy (PNA), including the residence of its president Ya. Arafat. Palestinians themselves, as well as some foreign media, these actions of the Israeli authorities qualify as state terrorism (terror).

Successful attempts are attempts by Cosososponsors BLU (USA, Soviet Union - Russia, some western countries) Determine the ways of establishing peace in Palestine. The main reason for the failure of the BVE is too prohibited the position of the United States, which does not allow the infringement of its "strategic ally". The US administration and now, together with Israel, stands for removal from power Ya. Arafat and replacing him more "convocating" Palestinian politician.

The actions of the United States and Israel against Palestinians contribute to a surge of terrorism of anti-Israeli, anti-American focus not only in PNA and Israel, but also in neighboring Arab countries.

In September 2002, the "Four" of international mediators in the composition of US representatives, the European Union, Russia and the UN prepared in New York the draft plan of the phased BVE, the result of which should be the proclamation of the Palestinian state in 2005

However, the implementation and this plan is questioned as a result of the second war in the bay initiated by the Americans. Israeli authorities support the implementation of American plans for the "restructuring" of the Middle East.

At the same time, it should be noted that the actions of Palestinian organizations against Israel, the terrorist attacks, disorganize Israeli society, damage the country's economy, lead to the intensification of extremism and terrorism in Israel, complicate its international provision.

Only the future may answer the question of whether certain events that focused on all over the world are really historical, epochial, capable of having deep and long-term consequences, or suddenness and drama of these events involuntarily makes people exaggerate their meaning.

Anyway, that shock, which experienced humanity on September 11, 2001, when the aircraft stuck in the buildings in Nu-York and Washington, caught terrorists, forced the world to think about the causes and possible consequences of this catastrophe. "What drives these people and is it possible to expect something even more terrible from them in the most close way?" - This question is asked everywhere.

An unmeasurated number of works are written about international terrorism: it would seem that this phenomenon was studied already along and across, and nevertheless, it always has something ominous mysterious, as if irrational, not fully understandable. No wonder the American professor of March Krenzo not so long ago wrote: "The scientist community is also to achieve an intellectual understanding of why there is terrorism. Neither the causes of terrorism nor its consequences cannot be explained by a satisfactory way. " However, it is necessary to try to explain to explain everything: the monstrous drama on September 11 showed that the dragon of terrorism is not only alive and full of strength, but also in a truly stands up.

It is international terrorism that goes over the local framework, and is recognized today, perhaps, the main danger that threatens humanity in the coming century. And you have to state that in this area of \u200b\u200bterrorist activity prevails what is usually - and incorrectly called "Islamic terrorism". In general, the correctness of the wording in such a sensitive issue is especially important. When they say: "Muslims destroyed the New York skyscrapers" (although it would be more correct to say: "Hindus killed Mahatma Gandhi" or "Jews killed Yuzhak Rabin", although in both cases the nationality of the murderers was exactly.

The overwhelming majority of people do not know anything about Islam at all, and interest in this religion for obvious reasons has been growing rapidly lately, and the myth of special militia is spread, almost the bloodality of Islam, allegedly requested from their followers of a merciless struggle with "incorrect ", That is, with the injectors. All this, of course, is completely wrong. In Islam. As in every great religion, various, not always, it seems to be compatible value installations, there are many contradictory. In the Quran, if desired, you can find statements that can be interpreted as militant. For example, many are now interpreted about Jihad, interpreting this term as a "sacred war against the wrong", which allegedly gives Muslims right and even imposes in the obligation to fight against the non-Muslim world by all means up to the terror, which can also be justified by Jihad. It is one-sided and incorrect interpretation. American scientist Tomal Lippman noted that in the word "jihad" embodied by the prophet on his followers, the obligation to protect faith. In the most general sense of "Jihad" denotes the struggle against evil and devil, self-discipline (common for all three Abrahamic religions), with which believers seek to follow the will of God, be the best Muslims.

They speak a lot and write about fundamentalism, mistakenly setting the equality between this concept and such as radicalism, extremism and even terrorism. Meanwhile, fundamentalism, preaching the need for reversion to the origins of faith, to the initial purity of religion, unmandant later layers, including those accumulated during the centuries, traditions and interpretations, may be inherent in any religion. He was born, by the way, in the United States, in the village of Protestantism: In 1919, the Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist Pastor groups created the World Christian Fundamentalist Association to protect the fact that they called the fundamental provisions of faith (in particular, they denied Darwin's theory about the origin of a person ). Representatives of Islamic Fundamentalism (in Arabic referred to as-Salafiya, from the word as-salaf - ancestors) also call for return to the origins of their religion, by no means referring to violence towards the injectors.

This is wrong to blame Islam in crimes committed by supposedly in the name of this religion. And yet - the fact remains the fact: the most ruthless, mass, "global-scale" acts of terror are committed by people who call themselves Muslims, and are justified by the teachings of Islam.

Three circles of moods can be distinguished (from broader to narrower), which underlie the motivation of modern international terrorists. We are talking about the sentiments of anti-parish, anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Anti-Padded Mood is a direct consequence and preservation in a new form of that spirit of anti-colonialism, which covered the peoples of Asia and Africa as after the first and especially after World War II. It would be wrong to think that anticolonialism disappeared after the departure of foreign troops and achieve national independence. He evaporated only on practical levelIn business and domestic relationships: the British and French can be quite welcome to meet today in their former colonies. But in the mentality, psyche, ideology it is preserved. It is inherent in all discriminated and oppressed communities: in countries with more or less pronounced anti-Semitism, for example, a Jew, even if he was rich and famous, and did not come across the open manifestations of his eradopobia, still felt that the "indigenous population" looks at him From top to bottom, just like in Israel Arab, even much more wealthy than his Jewish neighbors, and living in a luxurious villa, experiencing similar feelings. And his traditional feeling of his "second-class" in the eyes of "White" is a feeling, inevitably generating an inferiority complex and the reassigning offense, anger, protest - is characteristic not only for residents of the Third World, but also for those Asians and Africans (partly for Latin Americans) who live in the United States.

And in this sense it can be said that "Muslim's Anger" is just a particular case. Simply Muslim society, especially Arabic, in the modern world had worse than others. Nasery dreams about the creation of the United Great Arab World ("New Giant") and remained with dreams, and although several Arab countries thanks to oil wealth to break through the prosperity, in general, the Arabic society is entitled to experience deep disappointment from the entire postcolonial stage of its development. All secular government systems - from Western Parliamentary Democracy to Nasoresko-Baasist "Socialism", including military dictatorships, were tried and ended with failure if we talk about overcoming poverty, economic recovery, eradication or at least a decrease in corruption, social justice, political efficiency and Approval of the Arab world in a decent place in modern world order. No wonder that during the last decades, the voices were watched, claimed that the root, righteous Islam was the root, righteous Islam, from the Testaments of the Prophet, the desire to copy the systems created by alien to non-Molvuman civilization, which led only to the damage of morals, The decline of traditional values, the growth of self-supporting and decomposition of the Rights of the Company, reptiles to imperialism. Westernization, the imitation of Western samples of life was declared the main evil, sounded the slogan: "Al Islam Hua Al Hol" ("Islam is a solution").

Accordingly, the West is the very West, which was also recently a direct invader, an occupant, the owner of the colonizer, and at least therefore could not leave for her good memory - again became the enemy, but in a new sense. In the eyes of all dissatisfied and disappointed, which I will definitely want to find an answer - who is to blame in the spread of immorality, corruption, pornography, drug addiction, in economic troubles and in the fall of the prestige of the Arab world - the West is the most comfortable target.

3. Condition and development of Arab-Israeli dialogue

.1 positions of the parties on the settlement of the conflict

Without refusing entirely from the "Road Card", but at the same time, announcing the absence of a Palestinian partner, with which constructive negotiations can be conducted, in 2005 Israeli Prime Minister A. Sharon began to implement a one-sided dressing plan with Palestinians. Despite the warning of a number of specialists, including American, that this plan is contrary to the Road Map, as it provides for the preservation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Jordan, he was entirely supported by President J. Bush-junior and adopted as a "basis" of the roadmap. Following the US, a single-sided dressing plan was approved by all participants in the Middle Eastern Quartet, which at the same time emphasized, which perceive the plan of Sharon only as the "road map" "Roadmap", which can lead to the final termination of the Israeli occupation of the Gaza sector, and Also to assist the resumption of progress in the full-scale settlement of Palestinian - Israeli conflict. The very essence of this approach explained in one of its speeches US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "We deeply respect that courageous step, which made Prime Minister A. Sharon, going to sampling in Gaza and in the north of the West Bank. Jordan. However, it should be remembered that this is only the first step. "

It should be noted that political analysts provided two possible scenarios for the development of events after the implementation of a single-sided disposal plan.

According to the first, more optimistic, the inefficient of terror should be aware of the ineffectiveness, to work restore the economy and take advantage of the USA to prepare for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

According to the second, pessimistic, immediately after sizing, a new round of terror was to begin, which will be brought primarily on the border with the Gaza sector, Israeli cities, as well as Jewish settlements of Jews and Samaria.

Today, when the active phase of the one-sided dressing plan with the Palestinians is completed, and the events of the last two months clearly demonstrate that it is gradually a second scenario in the region, the problem of the practical implementation of the Road Card Plan is extremely relevant.

It should be noted that today official Israel continues to demonstrate its commitment to the Road Map. According to a recent statement by A. Sharon, made at the Conference in Tel Aviv, the Road Map is the only viable plan of peaceful settlement in the Middle East and the "Best Plan for the Future of Israel does not exist." The Israeli Prime Minister emphasized several times that the sizing is a one-time event, after which the implementation of the "roadmap" should begin. At the same time, A. Sharon emphasizes that it will enhance only after the whole terror will cease in the region, terrorist organizations will be disarmed, and reforms will be held in the territories controlled.

As you know, the "road map" provided after the parliamentary elections in the PNA convocation under the auspices of the International Conference on the Middle Eastern settlement, which will start the process of creating an independent Palestinian state in time boundaries. In this regard, the US administration carries out contacts and consultations with the Palestinian leadership, the purpose of which is to proclaim the Palestinian state in the time boundaries in accordance with the second stage of the Road Card Plan. At the same time, Palestinian sources celebrate, the administration of the White House sees this temporary state precisely within the borders of the Gaza sector. As for the West Bank. Jordan, at this stage, the American leadership considers this territory "fragmented cantons, control over which is the subject of future negotiations."

However, the Palestinian National Administration acts categorically against the proclamation of the state of Gaza. Palestinians argue that the second stage of the Road Card is just an option, not a item, mandatory for implementation. In their opinion, there is a significant likelihood that in the future, the temporary boundaries of the Palestinian state can turn into permanent. "Most of all we fear that the Gaza sector will turn into a huge prison, closed from external world"," Said Mahmoud Abbas recently in an interview with the al-Khalider newspaper, which overlooks the United Arab Emirates.

In order to prevent the creation of the Palestinian state in the time boundaries, the Palestinians insist at the immediate transition to negotiations on the final status, which are provided for by the third stage of the Road Map. So, during a meeting in the White House between US President J. Bush and Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Abu Mazen, which took place in May 2005, the Palestinian leader proposed to skip the second stage of the implementation of the "Road Card" and immediately begin negotiations on the constant status, which There should be a final solution to issues related to the borders of the future Palestinian state, the problem of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return.

The Israeli government, for its part, is categorically against such a scenario, stressing that it will not start negotiating the final status, until the MET leaders can guarantee the safety of Israeli borders and will not disarm Hamas. This point of view adheres to both the American administration, which, together with the Israeli side, has repeatedly stated that the PNU did not even fulfill the "prerequisite" plan "Roadmap", namely, did not disarming terrorist groups.

It should be noted that the Palestinian terror, which has not ceased after the completion of the unilateral campaigning program, significantly removes the prospects for further Palestinian-Israeli peaceful settlement. Thus, Chairman of the Israeli Headquarters for Combating Terror, General of the reserve D. Arditi believes that the modern activation of the terrorist activities of Palestinian militants can lead to a significant escalation of the conflict and finally cross the chances for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

It should be emphasized that Palestinian militants who came out from under control put Mahmoud Abbas in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, the Palestinian leader is necessary for Israel to make concessions, it would increase its popularity.

On the other hand, any steps of the Palestinian authorities against the Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who demand from the chairman of the PNU Israel, immediately exacerbate the relationship between the Palestinian leadership and the radical Palestinian opposition, which may have the most serious consequences for Abbas.

To date, the resumption of negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli parties is a priority step to return the peace process to the "Road Card" rails. However, according to A. Sharon's statement, so far the attacks continue, the holding of the Palestinian-Israeli meeting at the highest level remains irrelevant. As a result, the first after the completion of the program of one-sided dressing of the Palestinian-Israeli summit was postponed indefinitely three times.

Moreover, the complexity of the issues that are issued on the agenda of the future summit, indicates that negotiations will not be deprived of serious difficulties. Thus, the main topics of the meeting by A. Sharon with Abu Mazen will be issues that concern the continuation of the implementation plan of the Middle East peaceful settlement "Road Maps" and the fulfillment of the agreements reached in the Al-Sheikh charm. In particular, the Palestinian side insists on the inclusion of the summit of such issues as liberation from Israeli prisoners of Palestinian prisoners, the departure of the Israeli army from the Arab cities of the West Bank. Jordan as of the end of September 2000 and the complete cessation of the construction of safety and barriers in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Jordan. The PNA also intends to demand additional sending relative to the movement mode between the Gaza sector and the West Bank.

However, considering some of the statements of the Israeli side, it will be difficult to achieve this. First, Israel is categorically against the liberation of Palestinian prisoners involved in the murder of Israelis. Secondly, the command of Tsakhal opposes the transfer of cities in Judea and Samaria under the control of the PNA, referring to the fact that the Palestinian administration is too helpless, so that she can entrust security control in the region. In addition, the Israeli Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that Israel will not agree with the participation of Hamas's terrorist organization in the Palestinian government and will demand from M. Abbas more stringent measures to combat terror.

Thus, the prospects for the practical implementation of the Plan of the Middle Eastern Peace Settlement "Road Card" at this time remain quite ghost. It should be emphasized that the degree of distrust between Israel and the PNU is so high now that without any serious participation of the International Quartet and the provision of conflicting parties to real guarantees of compliance with their interests to resume political dialogue and especially ensuring fundamental shifts on the way to full-scale Palestinian Israeli peaceful settlement is not possible.

It is necessary to admit that today the basis in Palestinian-Israeli is missing. Moreover, the real conditions in which attempts to implement the "roadmap" are characterized by an increased sense of mutual distrust and suspicion of the parties. Discredits of the Oslovsky process, the failure of the peace initiatives of the administration of E. Barak, the bloody terroristrates of the second intifada, the ongoing anti-Israel propaganda in Arab countries - all of this led to what the surveys testify, most of the Israelites tend to see the goal of the PNU and the Arab countries of the region to destroy the Jewish state But not the desire to implement the principle of "two states for two peoples". It is safe to say that the Palestinians do not show a special confidence today the idea of \u200b\u200ba peaceful settlement and constructive dialogue with Israel, priority is again given to the armed resistance and tactics of terrorist acts.

Full cooperation and equal involvement of all participants in the Quartet (USA, EU, Russia and the UN) during the implementation of the initiative are equally controversial. By itself, the idea of \u200b\u200b"Quartet", which will make them play together, on the one hand, the USA and the EU, and on the other - the UN and Russia, quite legitimate and ideally could put an end to the history of competing world settlement plans. However, the experience of previous years shows that such an idyll is practically not achievable due to the different political potential and the authority of cososponsors. In fact, the contradictions between intermediaries were transferred from the level of discussions in international organizations to the level of disputes inside the Quartet, which inevitably leads to the internal imbalance of the mediation mechanism.

To this it is necessary to add the lack of a clear Middle Eastern policy of the EU. Contradictions and conflicts of interest are observed both between the 15 member countries and between the Brussels supranational structures responsible for the sphere of foreign policy. The only component of a common platform that does not cause disputes is the need to form an "counterweight" of American hegemony in the international arena. However, this can hardly be considered a sufficient basis for complaints about an active role in Middle Eastern affairs. It is not entirely clear and what the European confidence is based on to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given their modest achievements in this area.

Through the prism of European news reports, official statements of political and public figures, as well as taking into account reports of growing anti-Semitic sentiments in Europe, the Israelis tend to see a hostile opponent in it, fully perceived the Palestinian vision of the Middle Eastern conflict, and not a neutral mediator interested exclusively in achieving peace. The EU policy on financing the PNA is making complaints not only by Israel, but also by some EU members, since with significant amounts of financial assistance provided any mechanisms for verification on which these funds are spent.

Recently, the problems of the Middle Eastern conflict as a whole, and the rights of the Palestinian people on self-determination, in particular, turned into a major foreign policy theme for T. Blair and its government. At the same time, the UK foreign policy department makes risky maneuvers, balancing between the support of American actions in Iraq, on the one hand, and stating their desire to fair permission to the Palestinian problem, on the other. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Palestinians' right to create their own state was the basis of British politics in the region.

The central element of the Road Map is the final cessation of the Palestinian propaganda of hatred and violence and the creation of an effective mechanism for the prevention of terror. It is quite obvious that for this requires a cardinal restructuring of the Palestinian power apparatus, it will be necessary to deprive or limit a number of high-ranking politicians and the head of the PNA. Success in overcoming all these difficulties will largely depend on the situation in the Middle East as a whole.

Despite the fact that the "Road Map" puts more questions than gives any answers, talk about her official presentation, especially by the Europeans, is increasingly more active. Fears are reduced to the fact that any delay in the implementation of intended goals will lead to the erosion of the position of the United States, oriented to support European steps in the Middle East.

Until recently, the US approach was to confirm the confirmation of American interest in the implementation of the initiative together with other participants of the Quartet, but at the same time postpone its official presentation until the end of the war in Iraq. However, K. Powell made an encouraging statement for his colleagues for his colleagues, which was reported that the United States considers it necessary to officially submit a "road map" to conflicting parties with the completion of the formation of the Palestinian government. The Secretary of State also stressed that the text of the initiative will not be subjected to significant editing.

But, despite this statement, some changes will not be avoided. In this regard, various understanding of the status of the document from Israel and the Quartet is drawn to. The latter believes that the time for discussing the wording of the initiative ended and an hour of their implementation came. Israel expects that he will be given the opportunity to make his amendments. From Europeans, the address of Israel is charged with the fact that all his proposals for the revision of certain provisions of the initiative and amendments are all no more than a political game aimed at tightening the time in the hope that the plan will lose its relevance in the rapidly changing reality of the region and will be removed from the agenda. Israel, for its part, declares that the amendments concern only the principal points related to the field of security, and should be considered as an attempt of a constructive dialogue:

Israel insists on changing the Palestinian leadership

The Palestinian state can be proclaimed only as a result of bilateral negotiations with Israel and after the conclusion of the relevant agreement.

A detailed wording of the Palestinians in the field of security, including arrest, redevelopment and judgment over suspects in the implementation of terrorist acts is necessary.

The Palestinian state can be proclaimed only after the final elimination of terrorist infrastructure.

Guarantees of freedom of IDF in conducting anti-terrorism actions in the territory under Palestinian control.

Israel to agree to the freezing of settlement activities only subject to the establishment of a genuine world and will not fully eliminate settlements at the intermediate stage.

Palestinian authorities must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Thus, before the first official visit of Israel's Foreign Minister S. Shaloma in the United States, there was a conviction that the "Road Map" is the basis for a discussion, and not a ready-made document. It was a confidence that there will be a bilateral discussion of the initiative with the Americans, mutual consultations will be held, during which the agreed version will be developed and only then the publication and implementation of the initiative will become a reality. The results of the visit of S. Shaloma were in many ways a surprise and discovered disappointing reality.

It became clear that the Bush administration considers the war in Iraq as a peculiar test for the strength of its position as a world superpower capable of carrying out their will without regard to other members of the international community. The purpose of the American campaign is not only a change in the regime in Iraq, but also a change in political reality in the Middle East as a whole. And Israel will have to fit into this new reality, adjusting its installations, possibly breaking traditional ideas and destroying stereotypes, which is unlikely to pass painlessly. The second revelation was the US plans to officially submit a "roadmap" to the parties over the next two weeks, while it is envisaged that they will receive no more than two or three weeks to determine and the statement of their position. After these "protocol" procedures, the United States will expect the start of the real implementation of a peaceful initiative, with compliance with the established deadlines. In the context of occurring events, it is necessary to say what can lead a conscious tightening of the periods of implementation or failure to fulfill obligations.

If the positions of Europeans and inherent inconsistency, then not to a greater extent than the position of the Palestinians themselves, since the new Palestinian head of government, Abu-Mazen, makes every effort to delay the moment of the official presentation of the "roadmap". Abu-Mazen fears the arrival of the immediate invitation to Washington for consultations on the implementation of the plan, and this, during military operations passing in Iraq, can be appreciated in the Arab world as aiding by the American aggressor. For the same reason, Abu-Mazen preferred to refuse official American congratulations on the occasion of entry into the position and hints at the undesirability of invitations to Washington, on which the Europeans are particularly insisted, considering it to raise the prestige and the authority of the new Prime Minister in the eyes of Palestinians and will help He is to form an image of the political leader of an international class, as well as submit it to the international public.

While active discussions are underway on the period of publication of the initiative, I would like to recall that, as experience shows and how it was with the report of Mitchell and the Slave Plan, the publication of this or that peace initiative does not necessarily lead to the immediate cessation of confrontation and the beginning of the negotiations between Parties. The success or failure of the roadmap depends solely on the will of the direct participants in the conflict, their readiness to implement the agreements reached and the abandonment of violence. This condition retains its relevance.

Now most analysts agree that the "Road Map" is already part of the history of Middle East peacekeeping, rich in a variety of peaceful plans and initiatives.

Thus, the next plan of Palestinian-Israeli settlement was developed by the initiative group of the functionaries of Israel's governments of various years led by the former Minister of Jossi Jossi Beilin, on the one hand, and the Palestinian officials of a different level led by the former Minister of Information of the Palestinian Administration by Yasir Abed Rabbo. The development of a document called "Geneva Initiative" was carried out for about two years, after which the ceremony took place in Jordan, marking the end of the preparatory stage.

New initiative, and on the history of creation, and according to the wording in the text, and according to the presentation style, it is very much reminded by another, which appeared in 1992-1993, when Israeli society was also assigned to the fact that the Oslo of secret negotiations with the Palestinians and achieved There are agreements. Then Jossi Beinin served as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of Yitzhak Rabin, which, but did not prevent him from exceeding his authority and without coordination with Rabin, send emissarov for negotiations with the OOP. When exploration told the Prime Minister about these contacts, he was surprised and angry, because At the same time, and from his name, Ellyakh Rubinstein led the official negotiations with the Palestinians in Washington. The end of this story is well known: Beelina, with the support of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Shimon Perez, managed to convince Rabin to sign discredited Oslovsky agreements today.

2 perspectives of a constructive dialogue in order to prevent escalation of tension and conflict resolution

The peaceful settlement of the conflict can be achieved, according to Dmitriev E. He writes about this that the consequence of the war of the United States against Iraq and the occupation of the territory of this country by the troops of the American-British coalition and their allies became a significant american Expansion of the American zone military presence in the Middle East. Now this zone extends from the borders of Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, the Caucasian Persian Gulf to the borders of Syria. In military-strategic terms, a number of Arab States of the Middle East - Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - turned out to be in the vice of two strategic allies - the United tov and Israel: in the south - with one hundred rons of the American army occupying Iraq and the controlling Persian bay.

What are the prospects for the political settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the light of a new geopolitical situation in the Middle East region, according to Dmitriev E. The reference point for searching for a response to this question may be the date on September 13, 1993 on this day on the green lawn in front of the White House in Washington Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin and Mahmoud Abbas / Abu Mazen /, who then held the post of Secretary General of the Organization of the Liberation of Palestine (OOP), in the presence of representatives of the Cosponsors of the Madrid Conference of the United States and Russia - signed owls local document: "Declaration of principles on temporary measures of self-government organization", which was mentioned above.

Further Palestinian Israeli Pen thieves and signing a number so on intermediate social smokes (Cairo - 1994, Taba -1995 and others) were supposed to lead to conclusion in the period (by April 1999) and the achievement of mutual agreement final status tus Palestinian statehood.

However, this term was failed to achieve such an agreement, the negotiations were interrupted due to disagreements for a number of fundamental issues: the territorial distinction between Israel and the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Jewish settlements, the return of Palestinian refugees to their foci. At the end of April 1999, Palestinian leadership, given the parliamentary elections in Israel in May 1999, as well as the opinion of the cososponsters of the peace process in the Middle East - the United States and Russia, decided to postpone the proclamation of Palestine state for a later period.

In June 1999, as a result of parliamentary elections in Israel, the government of Ehud Barack came to power, which was able to reanimate the peaceful process in a dead end. A little later, on September 5, 1999, in the Egyptian city of Sharm Ash Sheikh was under palestinian-Israeli Memorandum of Palestin creation of obligations of the parties on the previously signed, but not you full agreements, and so the same about the resumption of negotiations on the final status of Palestinian territories. Such negotiations were really resumed at the meeting of E. Barack and Ya. Arafat, held on the initiative and patronage amer kanchonian President Clinton in July 2000 in Camp David. When discussing the problems of the "final status" of the Palestinian territories, the government of E. Barack agreed with the transfer of the future of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to 90% of the territory while maintaining for Israby lem large Jewish village in the West Bank.

During the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in Camp David, there were also movements towards the rapprochement of the positions of the parties and in matters of the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements. But still, the disagreement between representatives of Israel and the OOP in these negotiations, primarily relative to the scheme of the territorial separation between Israel and the Palestinians and the action of the opponent was not possible to overcome the scheme of Jerusalem the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially among Israeli settlers. The latter accused the government of E. Baraka in allegedly too large "concessions" of Israel to Palestinians. At the same time, the protest speeches of the Arab population of the West Coast and the Gaza sector against the continued Israeli occupation. Moreover, these speeches were accompanied by acts of violence: shelling of Jewish settlements, explosions in places concentrate people and other shares committed for greater cha militants from radical Islamic buildings extrea masman - Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Even more increased after an unexpected march on September 28, 2001. Group of Deputies of the Israeli Parliament from opposition parties of the right block "Likud", led by General A. Sharon, located in the Arab eastern part of Jerusalem Temple Mount, to the shrines of all Muslims - Al Mosques -Ax. Muslims of the entire Arab and Islamic world regarded this step as a straight line - a blow to religious feelings, as a provocation aimed at undermining a peaceful process, on Tai to prevent the creation of a new Palestinian states with the capital in Jerusalem. The next day - September 29, 2001 - the indignation of Muslims who came on Spotd prayer in the Al-Aqsa mosque, resulted in a spontaneous uprising, soon spreading shelter ria Palestinian AV. tonomy. Began but the rear of the Palestinian intifada, on called "intifada al-aksa".

In February 2001, to the extreme of the electrified environment associated with the uprising of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, extraordinary elections in the Knesset (parliament) were held in Israel. They brought victory to the Likud block. On February 26, 2001, the leader of this block Ariel Sharon was elected new Israel Prime Minister.

From this time prevailing the armed confrontation was again the armed confrontation in the relationship of the Palestinians and Israelis. All Palestine, including the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, was overwhelmed by a wave of violence and bloodshed. Moreover, if the acts of violence are from the Palestinians - explosions on military and civilian sites, attacks on Jewish settlers, etc. In most cases, the work of the hands of the individuals uncontrolled by the Palestinian Authorities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements, then with one hundred the Rons of the Israelites they wore the characterized and planned by the Israeli government of the armed operations of the Israeli army and the police aimed at the destruction of not only individual leaders of extremist groups, but also official institutions and leaders of the administration of the Palestinian Authority.

This is evidenced by such facts as the practice of periodic invasions of the Israeli army into the territory of autonomy under the pretext of the need to destroy the "terrorists", for example, the occupation in April 2001 part of the gas sector territory in the areas of Rafah and Khan-Yunis cities, where Palestinian refugee camps and Subsequent repeated invasions of the Israeli army in these areas in 2003-2005, the destruction of Israeli aviation of the international airport and the seaport in Gaza, the shelling of houses and other civil facilities in Gaza and in the cities in the West Bank - Jenin, Ramalle, capturing the Palestinian police location, Blockade headquarters chapter of the Palestinian Autonomy of Yasira Aafata in Ramalla, prohibition of the movement of Palestinians from the territory of autonomy in Isra il, construction so-called my "barrier wall" separating part of the occupied territory of the autonomy - the West Coast and Gaza from Israel. The culmination of the armed confrontation of the Israelis and Palestinians in 2002-2003, when the terrorist attacks of Shahids - Summaceans from Islamic organizations Hamas and "Islamic Jihad", on the one hand, and the so-called "Retribution Shares" of the Israeli Army, and the other, acquired especially frequent and fierce character. At the same time, the main victims of the confrontation were the civilian population.

As reported in the note of the Permanent Representative of the Jordan Khistrist Kingdom of the UN in the name of the Secretary-General dated August 4, 2003, only from September 2000 to July 2006, more than 2,800 Palestinians and more than 800 Israelis were killed, thousands of people were injured. "Most victims in Israel were caused by terrorist at the attacks on Israelis, perfect various Palestinian terrorist groups. " At the same time, a large number of victims among Palestinian civil on the settlement was the result of the operations of the Israeli army, including preventive strikes and practices of targeted killings of persons suspected of terrorist activities in Palestinian districts. " In a number of Palestinian cities, as a result of clashes between the Israeli army and Palestinian militants, whole residential neighborings were destroyed. The city of Rafah in the south of the Gaza Sector was especially injured. During the invasion of the Israeli army to the area of \u200b\u200bBeit Hanun and Beit Lauge in the right part of the Gaza Strip in May-June 2003 was destroyed by more than a thousand Danube economic land and infrastructure facilities were destroyed or damaged.

According to the Israeli special services, in the four years of Initifada Al-Aksa, which occurred for the period of staying in power of the Government of Sharon, 1034 Israeli and foreign ca and about 5600 people get whether wounds. Palestinians conducted 138 suicide terrorist attacks, eight of which were made by women. At the same time, according to the press secretary of the Israeli human rights organization "Bezlem" Noam Hofste-tera, 3160 Palestinians were killed over the years. In addition, the Israeli army destroyed more than 4,800 Palestinian homes.

So, what we have to date. Many ways out of conflict were offered by the UN, members of the Quartet: famous, but unsuccessful resolutions No. 242, 338, 1397, 1515; The principle of "Earth in exchange for the world"; The "Road Map" plan - actually exist only on paper. Each new series of peace negotiations was interrupted by the next terrorist attacks, explosions, rocket shelling, provocations. In fact, all efforts and the achievements of the UN reduced "na no" with aggressive shares of Palestinians and Israelis. It turns out a "closed circle". Is there a way out of this circle?

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be viewed in the short and long-term perspective.

The main task you need to solve in the near future is to "sit down" the parties at the negotiating table. To do this, it is necessary to persuade or force Israel to limit settlest construction in the occupied territories, since this is the main obstacle to the establishment of relations, and it is emphasized, the obstacle is not to achieve a compromise, but only to resume the negotiation process as such.

If you consider the issue in the long term, then we are talking about the ways of the final settlement of the conflict. And here I cannot agree with the opinion of Vitally Naumkin, a famous Russian scientist: "Today it is time to quickly recognize the existence of a Palestinian state, with temporary borders for the transition period ...". The scientist believes that such a measure would stop the path to the creation of new settlements. However, I believe that, firstly, Mahmoud Abbas does not agree to such an option, and, secondly, the implementation of such a plan threatens even more tightening the negotiation process, because the key question of borders is unresolved - the eternal "stumbling block". And I strongly doubt that settlement construction will be stopped: now the scale of construction is only growing, despite the condemnation of Israeli policies to the whole world community, including the United States.

I see the following compromise option: Obviously, it will have to go for concessions to both sides.

The most painful question is the question of the status of Jerusalem. His nonresity makes meaningless negotiations on other controversial points. But if the Palestinians claim only East Jerusalem, the Israeli government considers Jerusalem entirely "as an eternal and indivisible capital" of Israel, so the question of Eastern Jerusalem is derived from the scope of negotiations. Then what kind of Palestinian state can be said if the whole Islamic world, even at least due to religious ideas and values \u200b\u200bcan not give Jerusalem Jews? Long created plans for the separation of Jerusalem. The most realistic of them, in my opinion, is a plan for which Eastern Jerusalem will become the capital of the future Palestinian state, the West - states of Israel, and the territory in the ancient part of the city, where the shrines are three world religions, it is necessary to endow the special status that there is already sewn ("City of the World"), and transfer under the control of the international community. I think it is obvious to all that we will have to share an ancient city - and therefore, in this matter, Israel will have to give up.

As for the "eternal" requirements of the Palestinians about the return of refugees who left the territory occupied by Israel, then in this matter I agree with Vitaly Naumkin's vision point, which I noticed that "here the Arabs will have to make concessions." Israeli leadership does not want to take refugees, and you can understand the Israelis. The status "Palestinian refugee" is hereditary. It is worth considering this fact that since the adoption of the UN Devolution No. 194 (III), calling for the return of refugees, has passed over 60 years. Obviously, the number of refugees increased by several times: Currently, the UN registered about 5 million people who are Palestinian refugees, and the population of Israel is 7,933 million people as of September 2012. Israel, accepting refugees, will turn into an Arab state. In addition, the refugees themselves rose in special camps and were brought up in the spirit of hate to Jews. Consequently, the concerns of the Jews and the demands of the Israeli government to recognize Israel "Jewish state" are quite logical and justified. So, the problem of refugees should be solved in favor of Israel.

No less sharp disputes causes the problem of borders: Palestinians demand to return to the borders that existed before the war of 1967, referring to UN resolution No. 242, and consider it possible to transfer to the Israelis no more than 4% of the territory of the West Bank of the Jordan River (Zubli). Israel also demands to join all the territories on which Jewish settlements are built - and this is more than 6% of its territory, and also wants to maintain control over the River Valley of the Jordan, which passes the border of Zuba with Jordan. How to regard Israel's condition? I suppose this item is a direct violation of the sovereignty of a not yet created state. Parties should fall on the figure - 6%, in favor of Israel. However, if we are talking about creating a Palestinian independent state, the control and protection of future territorial boundaries is logical and fair, in my opinion, to make the prerogative of the Palestinian administration.

No less important is the condition for the achievement of the "Interpalastinsky consent". In fact, today Palestine is still divided into supporters if they are not confronting, which have ideological disagreements, political forces - Fatah and Hamas. Yes, in May 2011, in Cairo, the Palestinian movements "agreed" about reconciliation. However, the Agreement was stopped due to disagreements on the formation of the Cabinet PNA. In January of this year, Fatah and Hamas agreed to defrost the process of interparable reconciliation. Steps are being taken towards the achievement of internal political unity in Palestine. Otherwise, with whom to negotiate Israel? With Mahmoud Abbas, and the region of the gas sector is ignored? So, the solution of domestic political problems is the primary task of the Palestinians. But, there is also the reverse side of the medal - the reaction of Israel, which brightly illustrates the statement of Binjamina Netanyahu, made in April 2011: "Mahmoud Abbas should choose - peace with Israel or a world with Hamas", which is easily explained. What is the Hamas movement? This is a fundamentalist Islamic movement recognized by the majority of countries as a terrorist, including Israel. This movement, which has not yet recognized the state of Israel, which does not just seek the world with Israel, but proclaims its task - fighting Israel. Vitaly Naumkin believes that "this movement should be recognized as a legal political force." I think that this is impossible, until Hamas revises his ideology and will not refuse to fight Israel.

Thus, there are many contradictory, controversial issues. Nevertheless, I do not consider the current situation hopeless. If the parties agree to go to mutual concessions, if a more flexible policy in relation to each other, the achievement of the world is possible. At the moment, based on the foregoing, I can conclude that Israel took a stronger, uncompromising position, which instead of the steps towards the world, only poured the "oil into the fire". And I mean not only active settlement construction. I will give a few examples: February 24, 2010 Israeli Prime Minister announced the inclusion of two shrines located on the West Bank of the Jordan River, to the list of Heritage Objects of the Jewish People; On April 14, 2010, the law was adopted, according to which the troops occupying the West Bank of the Jordan River will be allowed to evict the Palestinians from the territory of the shore without circulation to the Civil Court; On May 4, 2011, information appeared that the Israeli government refrained to transfer taxes to the Palestinians in the amount of $ 100 million. In addition, according to the estimates of the Human Rights Organization, Shalom Ahshav, the settlement activities of Israel in the occupied territories acquired a record scope in 2012. These and other points complicate the already complex negotiation process.

How to incline the parties to the world? What can cause Israel to make concessions? Of course, the strength of American-Israeli relations directly affects the course of the negotiation process. US Deputy Secretary of State at the Middle East Harold Sonders in an interview with RIA Novosti said the following: "The American side has long been the interests associated with the Middle East ... Previously, we were very interested in oil from Arab countries, but at the same time we have strong relationships with Israel, and These interests conflict with each other. The world in the Middle East is important for the United States, because it reduces the potential threat of unrest, which threaten the interests of the United States ... ". Harold Sonders does not doubt the US Success as an intermediary, because "no country has so close relationship with Israel ...". However, in modern conditions, this active intermediary activity does not bring positive results. We all remember the previously famous "Middle Eastern speech" of US President Barack Obama (May 2011), in which he proposed the basis for future negotiations: "The United States is confident that negotiations should be completed by the implementation of the principle of two states with the creation of permanent borders on the 1967 lines ..." . It would be possible to consider this statement with an incredible breakthrough, but Obama noted in the conclusion that "the United States advocates a demilitarized Palestinian state, since the Jewish state must be ensured by security ...". The item on demilitarization again limits the sovereignty of the Palestinian state. This speech brightly reflects the inconsistency of the US policy in the Middle East, which are forced to lavish between the interests of Israel and the interests of Arabs. On one cup of scales - the design lobby, which cannot be supported, because it is a significant part of the US electorate, on the other purpose - American interests in the Middle East, which are more difficult to provide against the background of Arab revolutions, and every step in support of Israelis can even more antagonize Arab world . Today, judging by the "success" of the peaceful negotiation of the Palestinian-Israeli process, the priority for the United States is to provide support for the products of the provincial lobby. That is why the current American administration, condemning the Israeli settlement construction, blocks the relevant UN resolutions, and on the eve of filing Mahmud Abbas an application for membership in the organization, Obama has repeatedly prevented that it will certainly use the right of veto if it is necessary. As for the fact that Palestine, by decision of the UN Security Council, received the status of a state observer in the UN, then in the US, it is perceived as a counterproductive measure: Palestinians to gain statehood first need to agree to negotiate with Israel.

The Middle Eastern problem is complex, multidimensional and requires a speedy solution, as the conflict delaying only adds new controversial issues, which is so grab. Settlement construction expands, and therefore the territories that Israel will strive to consolidate. The only thing that could move the solution to the problem from the dead point, again launch a peace negotiation process - this is a change in the US policy in the Middle East: the verbal demonstrations of support for the Palestinians and the condemnation of the actions of the Israeli leadership must be accompanied by real pressure measures for Israel, which the entire Arab world waits.

Conclusion

Ethnic conflicts are one of the oldest forms of social interaction, the motivational side of which one way or another is painted by ethnic feelings, affecting the deep structures of the human person. The special severity of ethnic conflicts acquire in conditions when their reasons are territorial claims.

A significant part of the conceptual structures of the nature of the ethnic conflict consider power and policies to potentially or relevant components of conflict relations. This is not by chance. Ethnopolitical conflict is a certain kind of or rather, a certain stage of the development of the ethnic conflict, in which it acquires political orientation. Political in ethnic conflict means the transition of conflict relations to a higher level of difficulty, which is associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at the redistribution of power.

The study confirms that the ethnopolitical conflict can be said when the sides of the conflict, separated by ethnic signs, have political guidance, pushing certain goals and political tasks. Both logic, and practice indicate that most inter-ethnic conflicts acquire exactly this species.

The beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the latest history was the UN resolution 181 (II) on the formation of the Israeli state on the lands of Palestine populated by Arabs.

The analysis of the recommendations set forth in this document indicate that it was not taken into account the positions and interests of one of the parties to the potential conflict. All Arab countries and the Supreme Arab Committee of Palestine rejected the decision on the organization of the Jewish state in Palestine. And this meant that in the resolution of UN 181 (II) there was already a conflict basis, which was confirmed by further events. The experience of conflict situations convinces that the decision is considered correct only if its mechanism is not only institutionalized, but has social status to influence social processes. And for this you need a general understanding of the structure of determining an acceptable solution.

The logic of conflict relations dictates the inevitable effects: Ignoring the interests of one of the parties creates problems and for another new state, Israel fell into the environment of hostile Arab countries that did not slow down to declare war on the new state, solving the force to correct the created position.

The following decades of war, terror, intifhad have repeatedly forced leaders of the conflicting parties to sit at the negotiating table and solve mutual claims to a peaceful way. But difficult, compatible interests and contradictions of the parties again led to war and terror. Today it is impossible to offer a unambiguous recipe for solving a conflict satisfactory for both parties. Only one thing is clear: in any case, both people will always live on a long-suffering land of Palestine. Neither expel nor destroy each other they are not able.

Analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a certain hopes for the factors of achieving peace and harmony in the region. The spontaneous development of events is not able to overcome the age-old claims and distrust of the Arabs and the Jews to each other. In the near future, the relatively peaceful coexistence of two states on the land of Palestine is possible in constructive influence on the development of events from the world community. France sees the only decision of the crisis towards the Middle East of international forces on the separation of the opposing parties. The question of their placement in the conflict zone was discussed by the leadership of Saudi Arabia. Demarks Paris was very highly appreciated by Arabs. However, Israel until recently categorically rejected the possibility of "internationalization of the crisis".

The peacekeeping efforts of large international powers, undoubtedly, the real factor in the development of Arab-Israeli conflict. However, the influence of this factor is far from unambiguous. Each concerned in the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East the country is interested in it in its own way. Urgently climbing the egoism of private interests could be an authoritative international organization, such as the UN, but, unfortunately, its possibilities are limited. They are limited both in a resource attitude, and in the sense of political independence, freedom with certain centers of influence and strength.

Humanity included in the 21st century with an understanding of the principled impossibility of getting rid of conflicts, which pushes sovereign states to build their policies on the priority of national interests and create relevant resources. However, the militarization of the national economy is evidenced by the story, does not bring anything positive in human existence, on the contrary, it bears impoverishment, primitiveness, deprives him of the joy of existence and desires his mental potential. Therefore, the concept of military superiority in conflicts objectively cannot become a symbol of the prosperity of mankind, for the potential is the extinction of the human race.

The movement of the Middle Eastern settlement process shows that the positions of the main political groups involved in this process had a strong impact of internal political events in Israel and Palestine, along with other factors in particular foreign policy and economic. It had a strong impact on the preparation of the negotiation process, as well as in the position of the Palestinian and Israeli side during the negotiations and the subsequent course of the peace process.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a collision of two territorial entities, ethnic communities for the right to create its own monocultural country and its universal recognition. Given the historically arising contradictions, three forms of relations between the participants of the conflict can be distinguished: a strong world, an open large-scale war, an intermediate state characterized by outbreaks of struggle and short-term attempts to bring the opposite parties to resolve disagreements.

An open large-scale war with the participation of a significant number of forces on both sides, aimed at the final resolution of the contradictions - the phenomenon is theoretically possible, but in practice such an outcome of events seems unlikely. First, because other countries are involved in the sphere of confrontation in addition to direct participants, as which occupy the border area and are at a considerable distance from it. Secondly, at present, Palestinian autonomy does not have a sufficient degree of consolidation of forces against Israel for an open large-scale speech against Israel. Thirdly, the purpose of the final resolution of the contradictions looks unattainable.

The second theoretically possible option for resolving the conflict is the creation of a strong world, which significantly impedes the reluctance of the political elite of Arabs to compromise in any form. In this kind of situations, the conclusion of the world for a long time is achieved by either the full exhaustion of the forces of both parties, which is in modern international incl. Financial support of both countries is unlikely, or the destruction of one of the participants in the conflict, which again in the foreseeable future is impossible for a variety of reasons.

Palestinians and Israelis are doomed to live on one land, but they should divide the territory that it will require a number of concessions and compromises. Documents "Road Card", Oslo Agreement, "Declaration of Principles" Sari Nusseyba and Ami Ayalon, the Geneva Agreement possess a number of significant drawbacks, do not solve four key problems: dispute about territories; the future of Jewish settlements (in many respects, a consequence of the problem of territories); The fate of Palestinian refugees and their descendants; The question of the religious shrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, incl. Question about the status of Jerusalem. Currently, there is a transformation of the ideological conflict between the "secular nationalists" from Fatah and "Islamic radicals" from Hamas to an armed confrontation between various trabalist, communal clan and religious-sectarian groups, of which the local Arab-Palestinian society consists. The experiment on the rapid consolidation of these groups of various origins into something remotely resembling the unified community failed, "Palestinian Nation" is not. From this it follows the impossibility of occurrence in Palestinian territories in the foreseeable future regarding the sustainable regime, with which a dialogue could be conducted according to the world scheme in exchange in the territory, and Israel is unlikely to separate from Palestinian Arabs in one or another.

Palestinian-Israeli relationships are doomed to the existence between a strong world and an open large-scale war. And in this regard, the Russian Federation should play an increasingly active role in the Quartet, which includes the United States, the United Nations and the European Union and created to resolve this particular conflict. The achievement of the declared goal is responsible to the national interests of Russia.

Bibliography

1. Middle Eastern policy of the great powers and Arab-Israeli conflict. In 2 tons / under total. ed. O.A. Kolobova. - T.2. Documentation. Nizhny Novgorod: ICI NNU, 2008. - 264 p.

Middle Eastern conflict, 1947-1967: from the documents of the foreign policy archive of the Russian Federation: in 2 tons / international. Democracy Foundation; Ot. ed. Naumkin V.V. - M.: Mainland, 2003. - T. 2: 1957-1967. - 701 p.

Bunny M. 6 days and years (6 days of June 1967): [from the life of Levi Eshkol, Israeli Prime Minister in 1963-1969]. - M.: Parallels: House of the Jewish Book, 2005.-214c.

Kolobov O.A., Kornilov A.A., Sergunin A.A. Documentary history of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Reader. - Nizhny Novgorod: NNU, 1991. -310 p.

Kuznetsov D. Arab-Israeli conflict: history and modernity. Essay Events. Documents and materials. - Blagoveshchensk: Publishing House BGPU, 2006.-285 p.

Olympiyev A. Arab-Israeli War 1967: the six-day war through eyewitnesses // Observer. - 2003. - №10. - P. 88-91.

Cherkashin N. He had to destroy Israel // Motherland. - 1996. - №7 / 8. - P. 112-114.

Churchill W. Pusty Day War. - Jerusalem; Moscow: Gesharim: Culture Bridges, 2003. - 315 p.

Chuvakhin DS Notes of the Soviet ambassador in Israel. 1964-1967 // New and the newest story. - 1996. - №5. - P. 151-174.

Antsuzov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: new ways and methods of prevention and resolution of conflicts. - M.: Eksmo, 2009. - 512 p.

Arab-Israeli wars. - M.: SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2004. - 509 p.

Arab-Israeli conflict: old problems and new plans. - M.: In-t study of Israel and near. East, 2003. - 59 p.

Baklanov A. Middle Eastern peace process: how to restore the dynamics? // Asia and Africa today. - 2006. - №6. - P. 32-42.

White M. Middle East: Big G8 Policy // Asia and Africa today. - 2006. - №6. - P. 43-47.

Middle Eastern policy of great powers and Arab-Israeli conflict. In 2 tt. / Under total. ed. O.A. Kolobova. - T.1. Patterns and features. - Nizhny Novgorod: ICI NNU, 2008.

Middle East: Regional Safety Problems. - M.: SSC RF Niopic, 2000. - 207 p.

Brutenz K. Sunset of American hegemony. - M.: International relationships, 2010. - 512 p.

Vavilov A. Middle East in Russian politics // Russia and the Muslim world. - 1995. - №12. - P. 84-91.

Vlasova Y. International and regional problems of the modern Arab world // Bulletin of the Russian University of Peoples Friendship. Series: Political Science. - 2009. - №3. - P. 25-34.

Hasratian S. History and ideology of the Jewish religious movement of the XIX-XX century: from the history of the state of Israel. - M.: YV RAS, 1999. - 237 p.

Daduani A. Democracy and United Nations. - M.: Modern Economics and Law, 2007. - 289 p.

Dynamics of Arab-Israeli conflict: materials of the scientific conference / Ed. Qty: O.A. Kolobov (Avd. Ed.) And others - Nizhny Novgorod: NNU, 1991. - 133 p.

Hirin A. War for the Middle East World. - M.: Publishing firm "Eastern Literature" RAS, 1998. - 168 p.

Zyabkin A. United Nations (UN) is a universal international organization of common competence: studies. benefit. - SPb.: Knowledge, 2008. - 439 p.

The origins and history of the Palestine problem, 1917-1947. / United Nations. - New York: UN, 1978. - 244 p.

Kapustin A. United Nations and international legal framework for maintaining international peace and security (to the 60th anniversary of the UN) // International law. - 2005. - №3 (23). - C. 5-30.

Kolobov O.A. Arab-Israeli conflict and American-Israeli "strategic cooperation" in a historical retrospective // \u200b\u200bBulletin of the NWN. Series. International relationships. Political science. Regional studies. - 2006. - Vol. fourteen). - P. 3-11.

Kolobov O.A. United States and Palestine's problem. - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod state. University, 1993. - 223 s.

Kolobov A.O., Kolobov O.A., Zhukarin R.Yu., Khokhlysheva O.O. Arab-Israeli conflict and new Middle Eastern policy of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. - 2007. - №2. - P. 258-264.

Koshach G., Melkumyan E. Middle East in Russian Foreign Policy // World Economy and International Relations. - 2002. - №9. - P. 38-47.

Kudryavtsev I. Islamic world and the Palestinian problem. - M.: Science, 1990. - 132 p.

Lovers N., Evseev V. Discussion of the problems of the Middle Eastern settlement // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - 2010. - T.80. - №7. - P. 642-644.

Mamkulova A. The formation of UN peacekeeping activities in modern conditions // Bulletin of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University. - 2010. - T.10. - №1. - P. 36-41.

Road maps routes. Palestinian Israeli conflict // Asia and Africa today. - 2003. - №12. - P. 2-7.

Medvedko L. Middle East: the longest "century conflict" // Questions of history. - 1988. - №6. - P. 131-145.

Misky after Arafat // Russia in global policy. - 2004. - T. 2. - №6. - P. 17-26.

Mokhova I., Tkachenko A., Petrov N. Big Middle and Middle East // Asia and Africa today. - 2007. - №12. - P. 11-23.

Nikitin A.I. International conflicts and their settlement // World economy and international relations. - 2006. - №2. - P. 3-16.

Pelpas M.Ya. Counted by one chain: USA and the United Kingdom in the Middle and Middle East in 1945-1956. - Tomsk: Publishing time. University, 2003. - 364 p.

Subsorob A. Arab country in the system of international relations // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 25: International Relations and global politics. - 2011. - №1. - P. 76-97.

Primakov E. The Palestine problem in the XX century: origins, evolution, prospects // Palestinian collection. - Vol. 27 (90). - L., 1981. - P. 3-22.

Pyrimelin ED 100 years of confrontation. Genesis, evolution, current state and prospects for solving the Palestinian problem. - M.: ROSPEN, 2001. - 480 p.

Russia and Arab countries: new realities of economic cooperation // INTERNATIONALE POLITIK. - 2007. - №1. - P. 79.

Middle V. Russia in the Middle East // // International Life. - 2000. - №3. - P. 83-88.

Tuganova O.E. International relations in the Middle and Middle East. - M.: International Relations, 1967. - 296 p.

Fedorov V. United Nations, other international organizations and their role in the XXI century. - M.: Logos, 2005. - 940 p.

Khazanov A. Middle East: Challenges of the XXI century // East. Afro-Asian societies: history and modernity. - 2011. - №6. - P. 182-184.

Khazanov M. UN and Middle Eastern crisis. - M.: International Relations, 1983. - 174 p.

Khokhlysheva O.O. Armed conflicts and the possibilities of their settlement in the context of the global interdependence of states and peoples // Nizhny Novgorod Journal of International Studies. - 2006. - Autumn. - P. 76-86.

Shumihin A. USA and Middle East: the evolution of views and politics // USA: Economy, politics, ideology. - 1997. - №4. - P. 35-46.

Yagudin B.M., Suleimanov R.R. Arab-Israeli conflict and the role of Russia in its settlement // Bulletin of MGIMO University. - 2010. - №5. - P. 337-340.

Tutoring

Need help to study what language themes?

Our specialists will advise or have tutoring services for the subject of interest.
Send a request With the topic right now, to learn about the possibility of receiving consultation.

Short description.

Nowadays, one of the most important and main problems of humanity is the conflict in the Middle East.

Arab-Israeli conflict - The confrontation between a number of Arab countries, as well as the Arabic militarized radical groups supported by part of the indigenous Arab population of the Palestinian territories controlled (occupied) Israel, on the one hand, and the Zionist movement, and then the state of Israel, on the other. Although the state of Israel was created only in 1948, in fact the history of the conflict covers near the century, since the end of the XIX century, when a political Zionist movement was created, which began the beginning of the struggle of Jews for his own state.

Arab countries participated in the conflict (Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq and other Arab countries) and the Jewish state of Israel. During the conflict, there were a lot of truce agreements between different countries, but the conflict continued to continue and every year becomes more aggressive and aggressively and from the Jews, and from the Arabs. There are still new reasons for war and goals in it. But Samoa the main goal Arabs is the creation of a sovereign state in Palestine, which was to be created after UN resolution of November 29, 1947.

Within the framework of the large-scale Arab-Israeli conflict, it is customary to allocate a regional Palestinian-Israeli conflict, due, first of all, the collision of the territorial interests of Israel and the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. In recent years, this conflict has been the source of political tensions and open armed clashes in the region.

Conflict history.

November 29, 1947The UN General Assembly has voted by a majority vote for the abolition of the English mandatory regime in Palestine in May 1948 and the creation of two independent states in the territory of Arab and Jewish. At the same time, a representative body of the Jewish population was created - the People's Council. Exactly at the time of the expiration of the British government in Palestine on the night of 14 to 15 May 1948 The People's Council held its meeting, on which one of the leading political leaders D. Ben-Gurion read the declarationindependence, proclaiming the establishment of the state of Israel. Jews, having received power over the territory allocated to them, began to evict Palestinian Arabs from their native land. Thus, the most acute and dramatic side of the Palestinian problem was the position of refugees.

According to the UN, June 1950. Refugees have become 960 thousand out of 1350 thousand Palestinian Arabs. The position of the main mass of refugees was extremely heavy.

In general, the conflict history can be divided into several key stages:arab-Israeli War in 1948 (First War), Suez crisis 1956 (Second War), arab-Israeli wars 1967 and 1973.(3 and 4 Arab-Israeli wars) eMP-David process of peaceful settlement 1978-79, War in Lebanon 1982(fifth war), the process of peaceful settlement of the 90s (Camp-David agreements 2000) and Intifada 2000 g., Started on September 29, 2000, and often defined by experts as the "sixth war" or "War to exhaustion."

Stage 1. Immediately after the state proclamation, Israel of the army of the 7 neighboring Arab countries invaded its territory. The first Arab-Israeli war began.

Despite the fact that at the initial stage, hostilities developed in favor of Arabs, the situation soon changed. Arabic unity was undermined by sharp contradictions.

As a result, Israel, based on the aid of the United States, managed not only to repel the offensive of the Arab forces, but also to attach 6.7 thousand square meters to its territory. The KM, allocated by the UN under the Arab state, as well as the western part of Jerusalem. The eastern part of the city and the West Bank of the Jordan river occupied Jordan, Egypt - Gaza Strip. Negotiations from February-July 1949, who led to the truce between Israel and Arab countries, secured the temporary border between opposing parties at the borders of the combat contact of the troops in early 1949.

Stage 2. The second war broke out seven years later. Under the pretext of the protection of the Suez Channel nationalized by the Egyptian government, the European companies who were owned by the ownership of European companies, Israel introduced his troops to the Sinai Peninsula. Five days after the start of the conflict, the Israeli tank columns captured the Gaza Strip, took most of the blue and reached the Suez Channel. In December, after the united Anglo-French intervention made against Egypt, the UN troops were placed in the conflict. Israeli Armed Forces left Sinai and Gaza Strip in March 1957

3 stage.The third war, for its vergement, the name of the six-day, proceeded from June 5 to 10, 1967. The reason for it was the strengthening of the bombings of Israel's military facilities in Syrian aviation in early 1967. During the six-day war, Israel almost destroyed the Egyptian air force and installed its Hegemony in the air. The war cost the Arabs of the loss of control over the Eastern Jerusalem, the loss of the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Sector, Sinai and Golan Heights on the Israeli Syrian border.

4 stage.Periodic armed clas that followed the six-day war were changed by the new exacerbation of the conflict on October 6, 1973. On the day of the Jewish religious holiday, Yom-Kippur, Israeli army parts were attacked by Egypt in the Suez Canal area. The Israelites managed to break through to the territory of Syria and surround the Egyptian third army there. Another strategic success of Tel Aviv was the forcing of the Suez Canal and establishing its presence on its West Bank. Israel and Egypt signed an armistice agreement in November, which was enshrined by peace agreements on January 18, 1974. These documents provided for the conclusion of Israeli forces from the territory of the territory to the west of Mitla Pokals and Gidi in exchange for reducing the military presence of Egypt in the Suez Canal zone. Between the two opposing armies, the UN peacekeeping force was deployed.

On March 26, 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in Camp David (USA), which completed the state of the war that existed between the two countries for 30 years. In accordance with Camp-David agreements, Israel returned to Egypt by Egypt by the Sinai Peninsula, and Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist. Two states established diplomatic relations with each other. Agreements in Camp-David cost Egypt Exceptions from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and from the League of Arab States, and his president Anvar Sadatu - life.

5 stage.On June 5, 1982, tensions in relations between the Israelites and the Palestinians were strengthened, passing on the territory of Lebanon. It resulted in the fifth on the account of the Arab-Israeli war, during which Israel subjected to Beirut's airbobs and the areas of South Lebanon, where the camp of the militants of the liberation of the liberation of Palestine (OOP) were concentrated. By June 14, Israel's land forces deepened in Lebanon to the review of Beirut, which was surrounded by them. After the massive art-stroke of the Israelis of Western Beirut, OOP evacuated its armed formations from the city. Israeli troops left Western Beirut and the main part of Lebanon by June 1985. Only a small territory in the south of Lebanon remained under the control of Israel.

In the late 80s, there were real prospects for a peaceful exit from the durable Middle East conflict. People's uprising of the Palestinians (Intifada) broke up in the occupied territories in December 1987 forced the Israeli authorities to resort to the search for a compromise. On July 31, 1988, the King of Jordan Hussein announced the termination of the administrative and other relations of his country with the Western coast of Jordan, in November 1988, the independence of Palestine state was proclaimed. In September 1993, during the mediation of the United States and Russia, a declaration was signed in Washington, which opens up new ways to resolve the crisis. In this document, Israel agreed to the organization of the Palestinian National Autonomy (but not the state), and the OOP recognized the right of Israel to exist.

In general, five Arab-Israeli wars demonstrated that none of the parties can cause a decisive defeat of another. This was largely due to the involvement of the parties to the conflict into the global confrontation of the Cold War. The situation in terms of resolving the conflict has changed qualitatively with the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the bipolar world.

There is such a point in the world - Palestine. For many, this is the Holy Land. But even people who are not too believed, understand that Palestine on the world map - the place is not quite ordinary. This is not just one of the conflicts, it is a symbolic point of the world, around which our history and our culture was formed. Palestine on the world map, the capital of Jerusalem - these words are ringing in the soul of every person. It is here that now is the struggle for the values \u200b\u200bfor which it happened in these places thousands of years ago, two thousand, two and a half thousand years ago.
Palestine on the world map in 2014 is two enclaves, separated by Israel, - Gaza Strip and West Bank. But once it was a single holy land ...

Palestine and Israel - conflict history

In general, the entire Middle East is the cradle of three Arabia religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And in Palestine and at all at all times, a number of Muslims, Christians, Jews lived. Since the most ancient times, Palestinian peasants grazed on these lands, livestock, cultivated various agricultural crops. Here is the first Kibla Muslims and the Third Shrine in Islam - Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The Israelis ruled only by some parts of Palestine for 4 centuries, while the presence of Muslims is calculated by 12th centuries! Moreover, the people of Israel left Palestine from 135 years old. up to the 20th century. Thus, their connection with the Holy Earth was interrupted in the 18th centuries.
So what is the cause of the conflict of Israel and Palestine? With the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, the European powers rushed to the East in an attempt to divide it. Therefore, it is not surprising that in 1907 at a conference in London - the term "buffer state" first sounded at the capital of the British Colonial Empire. The idea was to create a shield in Palestine against the Muslim population of the region and separate the Asian part of the Khaliphat from African.
This event was preceded by the foundation of the World Zionist Organization under the leadership of Theodorer GOLLA in 1897. The political campaign on the formation of the Zionist state on the lands of Palestine and active diplomatic work was especially successful in colonial Britain. However, the persistent offers of Khalifu Abd Al-Hamid about the sale of Palestinian lands Jewish migrants were categorically rejected: "I advise him to touch this topic. I can't sell any inches of this earth, because it belongs not to me, but my people. My people created the empire by victims and blood, and we swear our blood before we give this land to anyone. Let Jews leave their millions for themselves. If the empire breaks up, they will get it free. But this will happen only through our dead bodies. And I won't let it, nor under any pretext never. "
Palestine rejected proposals, it began to conflict with Israel.

Israel and Palestine, conflict briefly - this is a struggle

In December 1917, England fully occupied Palestine, and the commander of the British army proclaimed: "Now crusades Completed. " By the 20th year, she set a martial law on the whole Palestine. So the conflict began with Israel, whose state appeared on the map in 1948.
Palestinians were deprived of the constitutional rule, and its lands began to settle down from Europe of Jewish origin, which began to form combat units.
Until 1948, Jews belonged only to 6.5% of the entire land of Palestine.
At the end of World War II, the Jews stated that their security could be provided only by the National Jewish state on the lands of Palestine. And on August 13, 1945, American President Truman appealed to the English premiere with a request to resolve the immigration of 100 thousand Jews in Palestine. And on November 29, 1947, the UN under pressure from the United States and the USSR decided to divide Palestine to the Arab and Jewish state. Thus, the Jewish minority received 54% of Palestine land, although before it owned only 6 percent.
Soon during the war between the Arab army and the detachments of Jewish militants, annexation of 78% of Palestinian lands took place, and on May 14, 1948, Jews announced the creation of Israel. From Palestine, 60% of the population were expelled - it was from 800,000 to 1 million 390. 478 Palestinian villages were burned (there were 580 of them). The most brutal mass murder of the Peace Palestinian population was the murder in the village of Der-Yasin. Then 254 women, old people and children were killed. The entire Palestinian infrastructure was destroyed, and therefore, when they say that Palestine and Israel are the history of conflict between religion and science, then in part it is. Zionist radicals have plunged into the state of the primitive desert Palestine, once served by the scientific, educational and cultural center in the east.

How to help Palestine

When we are asked how to help Palestine, we answer - everything needs. Everything is missing there. There need bread, medical equipment, medicine, building materials. The gas sector is an island, cut from the XXI century.
And our foundation carries charitable assistance.

In order to figure out why the conflict between Israel and Palestine arose, first of all, consider it the background. Palestine is a territory that is located near the Mediterranean in the Middle East. The story of this small plot Sushi has a centuries-old history. The roots of today's conflict of Israel and Palestine lie in the past in the territorial-ethnic struggle between the Arabs of Palestine and Jews. But, I must say that such a tense situation between the two peoples was not always.

For a long time, Arabs and Jews peacefully lived in neighborhood in Palestine. Palestine during the reign of the Ottoman Empire was considered part of Syria. The population at that time in Palestine prevailed Arabic. At the end of the 18th and early 19th centuries in Palestine, and mostly around the city of Jerusalem began to appear the settlements of the Jews. But we must admit, the colonization of Palestine with Jews walked very slowly. According to statistics in 1918, the population of Palestine was Arabs, a total of 93%. The picture began to change the picture when, after the First World War, Britain received the right to control Palestine. This mandate entered into force in 1923 in September.

A wide propaganda has begun on the settlement and colonization of Palestine by Jews. This idea was put forward in 1917 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Britain A. Balfour, writing a letter to the leader of the Zionists. The letter reported on the establishment of a national focus for the Jews. The letter subsequently received the name - the Declaration of Balfura.

At the beginning of the 20th century in 20 years, the Hagan military organization was created, and already in 1935, the Jews created the organization of extremists - "Irgun Tswee Leumi". True, it should be noted that at first the displacement of Arabs from Palestine went in a peaceful way.

After the fascists came to power, World War began, the emigration of Jews in Palestine increased sharply. So in 1932, 184 thousand Jews were in Palestine, in 1938 - 414 thousand people had already become, and by the end of 1947 more than 600 thousand Jews, that is, at that time a third of the population of Palestine. The ultimate goal of the emigration of Jews in Israel is many called - the conquest of Palestinian lands and the creation of the Jewish state. The idea of \u200b\u200bcreating a state Israel It goes back in the distant past, but only after World War II, the embodiment of this idea has become possible. The idea of \u200b\u200bcreating a Jewish state was supported by the world community, a great role in strengthening this idea was played by Holocaust. In November 1945, the situation in Palestine was administered to the limit. The conflict of Palestine and Israelus was converted.

In addition to the fact that Palestine shook the collision of Arabs and Jews, during this period the movement of the Zionist terror was activated, which was directed against the British authorities. The United Kingdom could not solve this problem independently and made a decision of the future Palestine in 1947 for consideration at the UN General Assembly.

At that time there were two solutions of the future Palestine. The Special Palestine Committee for the UN, which consisted of 11 people signed a letter in which two independent independent states were recommended on the territory of the current Palestine: Jewish and Arabic. And leave the international zone between them - the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was supposed to receive international status. The Palestinian Section Plan was discussed for a long time and in November 1947 was approved. Among the countries recognized and approved such a division into Palestine and Israel were the United States and the USSR.

According to resolution No. 181/11 dated November 29, 1947, Palestine was divided into two independent states - Jewish with the territory of 14.1 thousand square kilometers, and this is 56% of the entire Palestine area and Arabic, with an area of \u200b\u200b11.1 square kilometers, which is 43% of the area of \u200b\u200bthe entire territory of Palestine, and Jerusalem - an international zone - 1% of the total territory.

Until August 1, 1948, English troops were supposed to be removed from the country. As soon as the decision was proclaimed about creating an independent Jewish state, Israel, the Zionists began a real not declared war. And even before the official proclamation of Israel's independence, 250 thousand Arabs were just forced to leave Palestine. At the same time, many Arab countries did not recognize the independence of Israel and announced the new state "Jihad" - a sacred war. In May 1948, a military conflict in Israel began.

The news of Israel's independence in Palestine instantly flew around the whole world. The countries of the Arab League, immediately after the proclamation israel Prime Minister Ben Gurion Independence states of Israel Military actions began. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, combining all his efforts, together declared the war to the Newly created State of Israel. From this, the history of Israel's conflict and Palestine began.

The troops of the Arab League had 40 thousand warriors, while 30 thousand were in Israel's troops. The troops of the Arab League commanded the king of Jordan at that time. In 1948, the United Nations called on the conflicting parties to a truce, but the truce plan, which was proposed - the parties rejected as unacceptable for both parties.

At first, the military conflict between Israel and Palestine developed in favor of the Arab League, but the course of the war has changed sharply in the summer of 1948. Within 10 days, the Jewish army, oppresenting the greater and better armed army of the Arab League, passed into a decisive offensive and neutralized the offensive onslaught of Arabs. In the final attack of the Jewish army, which occurred in 1949, the Israelis took the entire territory of Palestine, sweating the enemy to the very borders.

From the Palestinian territory, which Israel won, at that time more than 900 thousand Arabs were expelled. They were assieved in different Arab countries. At the same time, more than half a million Jews were sent from Arab countries who began to live in Israel.

Israel and Palestine The history of conflict - lies deep enough. Understand this question two sides, because as he says history of Israel And Palestine, two people can live together on one territory.

! -\u003e Normal 0 False False False MicrosoftinterNetExplorer4! -\u003e! -\u003e! -\u003e! -\u003e! -\u003e Arab-Israeli, or as they are often called, the Middle Eastern conflict is the longest of all unresolved conflicts in the world. Its beginning refers to the 40s of the 20th century and is associated with the problem of creating a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. This decision was made by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. However, this decision was originally rejected by the neighboring Arab states, and the Arab population of Palestine itself. The Arabs did not fundamentally recognize the idea of \u200b\u200bthe return of Jews to Palestine, considering this territory

First war

November 29, 1947 The UN General Assembly voted for the creation of two states - Jewish and Arabic - on the West Bank of the Jordan River (Resolution No. 181). The Jewish population welcomed this plan, Arabic - rejected: the territory of the Jewish state turned out to be much more.

May 14, 1948 The Jewish National Council proclaimed the creation of the state of Israel.

On the night of May 15, Egyptian aircraft was subjected to Tel Aviv bombardment. The army of the five Arab countries in a number of 30 thousand people began military actions against the newly proclaimed state. On May 31, from the militarized formations of "Hagan" (Organization of Defense), Elecene (National Military Organization) and Lekhi (Fighters for Israel's Freedom) was created by the army of Israel's defense (PCA), opposed by the troops of Syria, Egypt, Transice, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Army.

In the first months of 1949, under the auspices of the UN, negotiations were held between all the warring countries. In February 1949, the Egyptian-Israeli truce was concluded on the island of Rhodes, to which transitandania joined

July 20 The armistice agreement was achieved between Israel and Syria. The Armistice Agreement entered into force on July 17 in Jerusalem, and in the whole country - July 18. As a result, the coastal strip, Galilee and the Negev desert moved to Israel; Gaza band - to Egypt. The territory of Palestine to the west of the Jordan River, not occupied by Israeli troops, was under the control of transice, which, attaching this territory to himself in April 1950, received its modern name - Jordan. The city of Jerusalem was divided into two parts: Western went to Israel, and the East stepped over Jordan. The Old Town with the Temple Mountain turned out to be in the eastern part - the holy place of three world religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Palestinian Arab state has not been created. Arab states continued to consider themselves in a state of war with Israel; The very existence of Israel was considered by them as "aggression". This led to the escalation of conflict

The second Arab-Israeli War of 1956"Suez campaign"

The tension in the region sharply increased in October 1956 due to the question of the future of the Suez Canal, which was nationalized by Egypt on July 26 of the same year. Shareholders of the canal - France and the United Kingdom - began to prepare the Musketeer military operation - Israel was to speak as the main shock force.

On October 29, 1956, Israel began an operation against Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula. The next day, England and France began to bomb Egypt in a week entered Port Said. The campaign ended on November 5, when Israeli troops occupied Sharm-Ash Sheikh. The control of Israel was almost the entire Sinai Peninsula, as well as gas.

But the actions of England, France and Israel underwent a sharp condemnation from both superpowers, the USSR and the United States. The Soviet Union threatened to send his volunteers to the zone of the Suez Canal. By evening, on November 6, after the entire Sinai was under the control of Israel, an agreement on the cease-fire entered into force. By the beginning of 1957, the English-French troops were removed from the zone of the Suez Canal, and Israeli - from the Sinai Peninsula. On Sinai along the Egyptian-Israeli border and in the port of Sharm-Ash-Sheik were placed by UN.

In 1964, at the initiative of the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Vasser was created "Organization of the Liberation of Palestine" (OOP). In the OOP software document, the National Charter, it was said that the separation of Palestine and the creation of the Jewish state there was illegal. The task of full liberation of the territory of his homeland was set. The OOP was created as a prototype of the Palestinian state, and its structure included divisions designed to engage in political, economic, social, cultural, educational and military issues.

Third Arab-Israeli War ("six-day war")

The war, known as "six-day", began on June 5, 1967. Egypt, Syria and Jordan pulled their troops to the borders of Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked the entrance to Israeli ships in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. According to the ratio of the Arabs forces, the Israelites were 1,80 times, in tanks - 1.7 times, in artillery - 2.6 times, in combat aircraft - 1.4 times. Israel undertakes a proactive offensive; In one day, the Israeli Air Force completely destroyed the combat aviation of Egypt and most Syrian aircraft. Having lost 679 people, Israel acquired the entire Sinai Peninsula, the Golan heights and took control of Judea and Samaria. All Jerusalem belonged to Israel.

Fourth War 1969-1970 ("war of attrition")

Egypt was launched in order to return the Sinai Peninsula captured by Israel during the six-day war in 1967. I had artillery shootouts, raids through the Suez Canal, air battles. War was carried out with varying success and after the US diplomatic intervention was completed. In 1970, an agreement was signed on the cease-fire without territorial changes from the parties to the conflict.

Fifth war of 1973 ("war of the Judgment Day")

October 6. , on the judgment day, the most holy day of the Jewish calendar, Egypt attacked Sinai, and Syria is on the Golan heights. The successful attack of Arabs in the first days was replaced by the retreat of them by the end of the week. Despite significant losses, the attack of the Egyptian and Syrian armies was successfully reflected by the Thalem, after which the troops returned to the previous positions.

After that, with the mediation of the USSR and the USA, on October 23, an agreement was reached on the cease-fire, both in Sinai and the Syrian front. During the war, more than 8.5 thousand Arabs and more than 2.8 thousand Israelis died.

In January 1974, Israeli troops left the West Coast of the Suez Canal and El Cuneitra, retaining, however, control over Golan heights. In March 1979, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty entered into force, prisonered by US President Jimmy Carter by President Egypt by Anvar Sadat and Israel Prime Minister by Menachem Begin. Israel left Sinai, saving only the gas sector under his control.

Sixth (Lebanese) War of 1982 codenamed"World for Galilee."

Israel put the task of destroying terrorists from OOP: the terrorists of the OOP based in South Lebanon were constantly fired by Galilean. The reason was the murder on June 3, Palestinian terrorists of the Israeli ambassador in London.

The offensive began on June 5, in the 15th anniversary of the six-day war. Israeli troops defeated the Syrian army, Palestinian formations and their Lebanese allies, captured the cities of Tir and Sidon, and also entered the capital of Beirut. During this war, 600 Israeli soldiers were killed, but the goal set by Israel is the destruction of the OOP - was not achieved. After the capture of the Israelites of Beirut by President Lebanon was elected Israeli goldenman Lebanese Christian Bashir Zhmail. He promised to sign after joining the position of a peace treaty with Israel, but soon he was killed by the seeming Islamic terrorists. His supporters with the permission of the Israeli command entered the camp of Palestinian refugees Sabra and Shatila - allegedly in order to destroy OOP terrorists, arranged a massacre there, killing about a thousand people. The militants among them were an insignificant amount.

In 1985, Israel brought the troops with most of the territory of Lebanon, except the buffer zone, which remained under Israeli control until 2000.

In 1993, an agreement was reached on the mutual recognition of OOP and Israel as partners in negotiations. The OOP leadership officially announced his refusal of terrorism. In the same year, a meeting of the OOP leader Yasira Arafat with Israeli Prime Minister Izhak Rabin took place.

In 1994, an agreement was concluded on the first phase of self-government in part of the Palestinian territories. In 1995, another agreement was signed in Oslo on the principles of self-government in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from several Palestinian cities.

In 1999, Palestinian national autonomy was created on the territory of the West Bank of the Jordan River and in the Gaza sector, over part of which the Palestinians received complete control. In this part, the Armed Corps of the Palestinian Police and the Palestinian Authority were formed.

In recent years, a lot of international conferences in recent years, Madrid Conference in 1991, Conference in Oslo (1993), Conference in Kemp-David (2000), adoption by the Quartet of International Intermediaries (USA, EU, UN, Russia) Road Map Plan in April 2003.

In 2006, the League of Arab States (Lag) put forward its plan to solve the Middle East conflict: the recognition of the Arab States of Israel to existence, the refusal of violent shares on both sides, recognizing the Palestinian side of all previous agreements, the removal of Israeli troops to the borders of 1967 and the return of Palestinian refugees . However, the settlement of the conflict from the dead point did not move.

In 2005, as a result of the plan of Ariel Sharon's Prime Minister, Israel brought the troops from the Gaza sector and destroyed all Jewish settlements. 4 settlements in the northern part of Samaria were also destroyed. As a result of an armed coup, power inside the zone was captured by the Fatah by the radical Palestinian movement of Hamas.

The second Lebanese War (in the Arab world -"July war") 2006.

The armed clash between the state of Israel, on the one hand, and the Radical Shiite grouping "Hezbolla", which actually controlled the southern regions of the state Lebanon, on the other hand, in July - August 2006.

The conflict was provoked on July 12 a rocket and mortar shelling of the fortified Point "Nurrit" and the border settlement of Shlomi in the north with a simultaneous attack on the Border Patrol of the Israel Defense Army on the Israeli-Lebanese border of Hezbollah militants. During the terrestrial operation of the Israeli army, it was possible to move to the ruffles of the Lebanese territory by 15-20 km, to go to the Litani River and to largely clean the occupied territory from Hezbollah militants. In addition, fighting in the south of Lebanon was accompanied by continuous bombing of settlements and infrastructure facilities throughout Lebanon. The militants "Hezbollah" during the month spent unprecedented massive missile shelling of the northern cities and settlements of Israel.

The fighting continued from July 12 to August 14, 2006, when the cease-fire was announced in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution.

On October 1, 2006, Israel completed the conclusion of troops from the territory of South Lebanon. Control over the south of Lebanon fully passed to the divisions of the Government Lebanese Army and the UN Peacekeepers.

Since 2006, the situation in the Palestinian National Administration is complicated by the intra-parastinist confronting between the movements of Fatah and Hamas.

In October 2007, Israel declared the Gaza Sector with "hostile state education" and began its partial economic blockade, periodically shutting down the supply of electricity, stopping the supply of energy carriers, etc.

In November 2007, an American city of Annapolis held a meeting on the Middle Eastern settlement on which, in particular, a preliminary agreement was reached on holding constructive negotiations on the creation of an independent Palestinian state during the year.