The purpose of this memo is to provide a recommendation with respect to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. In the first paragraph, the strengths of one proposal will be presented. In the second paragraph, concerns related to the proposal introduced in the first paragraph will be identified. Finally, the third paragraph will contain the recommendation. The first part to reflecting on a proposal is to determine the strengths of the proposals arguments. The strengths of a proposal are key underlying factors that could determine whether a group gets what they want or not and tThe Israeli Government has several strengths in their own proposal. In the latest summit meeting, the Israeli Government summarized their proposal with a thesis saying that: The Jewish population have continually attempted to achieve peace through unselfishness, have suffered throughout history without their holy land, and the land was also rightfully given to Israel. Therefore they deserve Israel, Jerusalem, and the lands before the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Although this proposal may sound like a lot to ask in one Summit tThe Israeli government backs itself proposal up with strong, five, main, arguments that expand relate from to the original thesis statement. The first argument the government made to the proposal was that achieving peace is their main Israeli goal while going through this the process of lending outassigning territory rights and they??™ve supported it by giving providing examples such as howwhen they??™ve strived to make peace through the years such as signinged peace treaties and participated in peace negotiations despite enduring continued attacks to their people and land. Because This is a strong argument since peace is a topic many of the groups in the Summit have concern over and will want the group that inherits the land to have thatshare their same concernpassion for peace this is a strong argument. Another reason the Israeli government feels that they should maintain the rights to the territories is they feel they feelbecause they have suffered throughout historyfor centuries without their holy land; with them making argumentsthey feel that they deserve the land after what they went through in the Holocaust and it is their religious right to have the land, especially after how the Israelis and Jewish people suffered in the Holocaust. They provide support for this argument by showing how the Israeli??™s were left with little land why the Israelis deserve the land by showing what the Israelis were left with after the Holocaust and especially using statistics of Jewish hardships. Continuing further, they and showsadd that this land is their religious right by tying their religion to the lands disputed. These are two fairly strong points are also emotionally charged as who wouldn??™t feel bad for suffering peaceful people that have had their land, tied to their primary religion, taken from them.since they entitle the audience to feel bad for the Jews without any land to call their own, and shows their religion has strong ties with that land. The last reason the Israeli Government say why they feels they should maintain the rights to the disputed territories is because they were rightfully given rights to the land and they were willing to be unselfish with the land.it and give two valid arguments that they were given the land by the UN and are willing to be unselfish with the land. The government supported these two arguments by showing evidence of the United Nations (???U.N.???) giving them the land (i.e., , like showing whatproviding officially signed documents they signed,) and showing how unselfish they would be with the land received. In total, These these arguments are strong since they show the summit Summit that the international community (i.e., the U.N.) already decided on givinggave the rights to the lands to Israel and show that other countries will may benefit from Israel having the rights to the territories. The Israeli government will have to rely on their strengths to overcome the perceived weaknesses in their proposal in order to receive the land they want and claim they need.
When reflecting upon any reflection to a proposal not only does one need to look at the strengths but it is also necessary to look at the proposals weaknesses. Although the five argument of the Israeli gGovernments proposal hasd much many strengths to their 5 arguments the remaining groups perspectives made some key points in the summit Summit that proved that some weaknesses still exist in their Israeli proposal arguments. The first weakness that the Israeli Government may have with their proposal is the proposal itself since their proposalit asks for most if not all of the land being disputed in this conflict. Members of the Summit members may not like this big of an ???ask??? in a proposal since (and and even though they may be proposing for just as much land themselves) this proposal may cause them to feel that the Israeli government is being greedy. When the Israeli government made it clear that the United NationsU.N. gave them the land that is now being reissued in this summitSummit, it could be inferred from comments made in this summit Summit that many groups feel that the U.N. shouldn??™t of have had the power to make that decision and therefore they don??™t feel that point is valiwant to recognize the land right grants provided by the U.N.d. The Israeli government responded to these questions by saying their point should be accepted because the U.N. is composed of the international community and so if the U.N. gave them the land then the Summit members should too. This rebuttal would be especially effective if the majority of Summit members were part of a country that was a member of the U.N. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Although this would be a good point if proposed to a group of countries, the Israeli government??™s rebuttal is not quite as effective when speaking to merely groups of people who have no say in the UN. One last further weaknesses of the Israeli government??™s proposal that has been questioned in the summit Summit is that they argue that they have certain rights (religious, territorial, political etc.) to the territories being disputed in this conflict, yet at the same time giving them the territories would result in taking away certain rights from the Palestinians. These rights taken away from the Palestinians include right of movement, expression, and right to a nationality. The main question to this weaknessIn other words, some Summit members asked, is why should the Israeli government gain rights while the Palestinians lose them Of course, a counter to this was already provided in that the Israeli??™s have already offered to be unselfish with the land. Questions like these theThe Israeli government will have to answer questions like these and in order to be successful in this dispute and they must find ways to eliminate or lessen their weaknesses.