History of the Palestinian Conflict

History of the Palestinian Conflict In order to have a thorough understanding of the Palestinian problem, events in the early 20th century, prior to 1948 (Israeli independence) should be closely examined and understood. Many historians mark the first act which led to the Palestinian problem as the Balfour Declaration in 1917. There, it was announced that Britain shall support in the goals of Zionists, and therein strive to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, His Majestys Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people[1]. With Jewish spirits high all over the Jewish Diaspora, the third Aliyah (influx of Jews to Palestine) took place in 1919[2]. The number of Jews gradually increased in Palestine, and by 1947, the 11% population of Jews increased to a healthy 33%[3]. The immediate cause of the Palestinian problem is often dated to November 29th 1947, on which the UN announced that the British Mandate of Palestine would be divided into separate Arab and Jewish states[4]. The decree sparked great outrage from Arab nations, but was a warmly welcomed decision from the Jews and other European and North American States. Two pinnacle wars then followed which would directly influence into the Palestinian problem. The Civil War first took place as an immediate reaction eleven days after the UNs declaration. Jewish victory then led war lead to two events: the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May the 14th 1948 and the beginning of An-Nakabah, the Palestinian Exodus. In first phase of the Palestinian Exodus, 125,000 were evicted or fled from their homes, and were prevented from returning[5]. The second war that followed was the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. In this war, Israel was to face a grand Arab coalition which denounced its independence. A decisive Israeli victory, and a disastrous Arab defeat increased the final number of the Palestinian exodus to a staggering 750 000 Palestinians. By the middle of the 20th century, State of Israel was firmly established upon the former Palestinian territories, and many Palestinian settlements were either depopulated or destroyed. Hence, the Palestinian problem was herein created; an issue of Palestinians, their state, homeland, refugees, and also Palestinian-Israeli co-existence in Palestine and the stance of Jerusalem, is all to exist until this very day. Yasser Arafat and the Creation of Fatah: Born on 24 August 1929, in Cairo, Egypt, Yasser Arafat was the son of Palestinian parent[6]. During the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, he went to Palestine to join the fighting. His role in the Palestinian problem begins early on in his political life when in 1958, Arafat, with a number of his Palestinian colleagues in Kuwait, corroborated and formed the militant group Fatah. The group was dedicated to liberate Palestine by Palestinians with a means of force. The idea was to eliminate Zionist Israel re-establish Palestinian homeland and resolve the Palestinian problem. Until this very day, Fatahs main goal is, complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.[7] A Means of Force, to Settle to Problem: The Rise of Fatah, the PLO and the 70s: In the Six Day War, Fatah did play a small role in the fighting against the Israel. The humiliating Arab defeat further broke Arab morale especially that of the Palestinians who consequently lost trust in the united Arab resolution. But Fatah was to have its first main military encounter with Israel in the Battle of Karameh on March 21st 1968. With Fatah growing in stature, organised raid were conducted against Israeli settlements. Israels retaliation was to raid the Jordanian city of Karameh, a newly made stronghold for Fatah[8]. Though the battle was a military victory for Israel, it was seen as a somewhat physiological victory for Fatah. Abdallah Frangi (a Palestinian leader at the time) labelled it the political and military turning point in the Palestinian resistance, especially for Fatah.[9] Arab support was rallied behind the group, and Arafat was able to garner a number of Palestinian recruits for his group. Fatah was inducted into the PLO in 1967, and in 1969, Yasser Arafat became chairman of the PLO. Arafat transformed the organisation into becoming a strong independent organisation intended to make Palestinian appeals be heard by the world[10]. He therein became the ultimate leader of the Palestinian resurgence. By 1970, Yasser Arafat was deeply engaging in his arms resolution of the Palestinian problem. Raids into Israeli territories were organised regularly and Fatah was became an increased threat to Israel. In Arafats and Fatahs prime years of the 70s, both the PLO and Mossad (The Israeli Intelligence Agency) engaged in terrorist style warfare against each other. The Mossads known for several key assassinations, such as that of Ghassan Kanafani [11], (writer and spokesman for the Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine, considered the second largest group in the PLO after Fatah) and Dr Wadie Haddad[12] (leader of the PFLP.) For the PLO, the Fatah group, Black September were one of the key groups engaging in such activities[13]. One of the most famous works of Black September was the abduction and assassination of 11 Israeli athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games[14]. Though Arafat has never been proven to be part of the attacks, Israeli and American authorities often associate him to them. Analysis of Arafats Forceful Resolve: A number of western sources agree that Yasser Arafat tried to resolve the Palestinian problem through a means of terrorism. Its stated that he saw in terrorism, not of the horrific murders, but rather a means of gaining recognition for Palestine and Palestinian struggle. Barry and Judith Rubin, authors of Yasser Arafat: A Political Biography state, He had seen how it [terrorism] mobilized Palestinian and Arab support for the PLO; raised the Palestine issues international priority; prevented other Arab states from negotiating peace with Israel, and made many western leaders eager to appease him.[15] Often using the Fatah subgroup, Black September, there are claims that Arafat often approved operations and stemmed funds to them[16]. The argument also states that Arafat consistently throughout his life would deny such acts, thereby having a remarkable ability to escape responsibility for the terrorism he committed.[17] These views clearly classify Arafats armed approach in dealing with the Palestinian problem as acts of terrorism. They proclaim that Arafat, as a terrorist, used fear antic to drive his goal of dealing with the Palestinian struggle. The alternative view, in that Arafat was a freedom fighter is believed by many other historians and writers. Its a stance expressed by one of the closest people to Arafat, Bassam Abu Sharif (Senior Advisor to Yasser Arafat.) In his book, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, he states, In my opinion, people in the west saw Arafat through the negative propaganda which rather painted Arafat as a terrorist, rather than a freedom fighter[18]. With the Palestinian problem ignored early on by many western countries[19], it indeed was Arafat who rather globalised the issue, made it a phenomenon everyone needed to solve. This is seen to make Arafats armed role in dealing with the Palestinian problem a pivotal one. These arguments also highlight Arafat as being the sole power in the Palestinian revival following the Six Day War, It was in these disheartening circumstances that the Palestinian revival began. There was little doubt that Arafats was the decisive voice[20]. Also, those which Arafat commanded are perceived as freedom fighters by some, Yasser Arafat, who had emerged as a significant figure in the Palestinian struggle for liberation, recruited young people to the resistance movement. In 1970, Palestinian freedom fighters took control of the Gaza Strip Yasser Arafat hence provided Palestinian revitalisation in the Palestinian problem, hereby making his armed role an extremely important one. As quoted by Stephen Howe, Without the Arafat of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, there might well not have been a Palestinian national movement at all. Evaluation: Surely, Arafats armed solution is interpreted differently by different cultures and people. Arafats emergence was in bloody early days of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a time when sympathy of Palestinians and their struggle was widespread in the Muslim world whereas backing and support was provided to Israel by many western states. This makes the Palestinian debate a 2 sided debate, and consequently, an evaluation of Arafat is often affected by emotion and bias by the opposing parties. Arafats armed resolution of the Palestinian problem isnt a clear cut issue of neither terrorism nor political fanaticism. Two issues must be understood to drive this point; firstly, Arafats activities as a militant rather than a terrorist. An analysis of Yasser Arafats activates prove that he rather was present and an active member in raids and attacks against the Israeli army and troops and rather not in the alleged terrorist attacks of the PLO. Also, since he never was proven to be a terrorist, it can never be claimed he was indeed a terrorist. Secondly, a distinction must be made between the activates of Arafat and those of his bodyguards and Fatah colleagues. Often, the actions of both are confused, and when an attack by Fatah insurgents is carried of, its often stated that Arafat himself was part of then. Its true that Yasser Arafats role as leader of Palestinian spurred some to extremism, but it must be understood, though his Fatah colleagues did engaged in terrorism, he didnt. Yasser Arafat armed role in dealing with the Palestine problem should not be seen as of radicalism or extremism in thought and intent. Arafats armed struggle, though did not solve the issue, did in fact bring some results. His armed struggle brought a resurgence of the people of Palestine. With the united Arab response being habitually useless (by constant Arab defeat and loss to Israel,) only a Palestinian response seemed to solution. This but rather needed the revival of the Palestinian hope, which was severely crushed by the mid 1960 (especially with the loss of Jerusalem.) Though ludicrous it may sound, Palestinian revitalisation would not have occurred through peaceful means. The reason for this was that Palestinians where irritated and demoralised by the constant disappointment in the outcomes of Arab negotiations concerning their struggle. A symbol of an armed struggle would only then revitalise these frustrated Palestinians. With the creation of Fatah, (to liberate Palestine by Palestinians) Arafats armed struggle brought this Palestinian resurgence. Arafat also united the Palestinian people, under his armed struggle, a strong step in dealing with the Palestinian problem. In essence, hadnt this revitalisation occurred, the State of Palestine would not have been created, and future talks of peace and co-existence would not have occurred. But it should be clearly understood, that Arafat did not achieve his intended aim in his armed approach. A Peaceful Resolve for the Palestinian Problem: A Change in Contention, Olso and Camp David: In 1974, the PLO executive committee including Arafat drew up The Ten Point Program[21]. By many, is considered as the first peaceful initiative taken by Arafat to resolve the Palestinian Problem. It was a decree calling for Israel to return back liberated[22] Palestinian lands. The declaration wasnt one of change in direction, though was unique in that it did show Arafat to have a way of dealing with the problem through negotiations. The Ten Point Program was to be followed by more years of violence. After years of unrest with the rise of the terrorist group Hamas and notably the coming into being of First Intifada (which Arafat associated himself to); on the 13th and 14th of December 1988, Arafat announces a change of thought. He formally recognised the State of Israel, renounced terrorism, and revealed intentions of seeking peaceful negotiations in managing the Palestinian problem[23]. A month earlier, the Palestinian National Council (led by Arafat) announces and proclaims The Palestinian Declaration of Independence[24]. It was a new direction for Arafat in settling the Palestinian problem. In 1993 marks a historical event in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders took place in Oslo, Norway. The talks were very secretive, with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabik with their top ministers negotiating in terms to co-exist peacefully. Issues such as the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian territories, Palestinian elections, economic cooperation and regional development were all discussed. Both parties agreed on the status of each, the rights of each other, and their intentions to co-exist. With the help of the Clinton government, on 13th of September 1993, the Oslo Accord was signed. It was thought to be the basis of all future talks between both. In 2000, continuing talks took place between Israel and Palestine at Camp David, in order to finalise the conditions of the Oslo Accord[25]. The talks were to therein define the boundaries of Israel and Palestine. The status of Jerusalem (a key aspect of the Palestinian problem) was the hindrance point in the talks. In regards to the possession of Jerusalem, both parties were unable to agree on a compromise, hence making the Camp David talks a failure. Analysis of Arafats Peaceful Resolve: Arafats change in approach in dealing with the Palestinian approach (i.e. seeking peaceful measures) has often incurred various interpretations. One particular arguement is that Arafat changed his strategy of armed approach to a peaceful one in order to fool others and drive his own agenda of securing Palestinian homeland. It was a typical Arafat style solution. By being so ambiguous about his methods and goals, Arafat could hope to convince the west that he was ready for peace and convince his own colleagues that he was determined to continue the struggle[26]. These views hereby make Arafats change in approach a somewhat deceitful trick that rather had true initiative. A different viewpoint states that Arafat was rather pressured by Israeli and American officials to denounce an armed approach and terrorism[27]. Throughout the Oslo Accords, its stated that Arafat was the weaker party, and that he was rather accepted terms and condition which Israel modelled[28]. This argument thereby makes Arafats peaceful resolution of the Palestinian problem not an intuitive of his, but rather a pressure he had to comply with. In regards to the Camp David Summit, a many historians believed it was doomed to fail. Kamrava argues that both parties thought they were giving up more to the other, while the other wasnt being reasonable[29] in their compromise[30].Hence, in dealing with the most controversial issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the issue of Jerusalem, there was never to be an agreement. Hence, Arafats peaceful resolve of the Palestinian problem was always doomed to fail. Nevertheless, there are others, such as Bassim Abu Sherif, who says that the new peace path was rather genuine and promising. He claims though the US authorities did put down demands for Yasser Arafat, Arafat rather wanted his announcement to first be supported by for the PLO and Palestinians, then flexible to US demands, It was clear that Arafat wanted to be flexible enough to meet American demands, but he also wanted to make sure that he had the approval of the majority of the PLO executive committee to preserve the democracy of the decision making process of the PLO.[31] It was clear that Arafat was aware that by this time, both he and Palestinians were exhausted from fighting. Hence, this different approach in dealing with the Palestinian struggle might be interpreted as a new path, thereby creating new opportunities in dealing with the Palestinian problem. Evaluation: Arafats change in means resolving the Palestinian problem is also an issue of debate. The question of why change in direction and whether it was genuine is truly the discussion. But a deduction of Arafats activities brings an understanding of genuinity. Hence, his role in trying to resolve the Palestinian problem is herein magnified by his actions of this new resolve. Its evident that with years of unrest and the lack of advancement in resolving the Palestinian problem, Arafat needed to find a new resolve. He needed to settle the Palestinian crisis that now nearly turned into internal feuding. So, by understanding this dire need of change, it must be clear that he, Arafat, chose to change the idea of an armed struggle. It seems that he neither needed the pressure of Israel or the U.S. but rather chose to do it because of situation of the Palestinian people. Hence, it makes the resolution a genuine on Arafats part. Therefore, we see in Arafats change in thought his striving quest of solving the Palestinian problem. Arafats role in dealing with the Palestinian problem could further be evaluated by his actions at Oslo and Camp David. First of all, he dealt with the issue of Palestinian homeland in Palestine with the Oslo Accord. In this regard, Arafat failed to clearly resolve the issue, due to the vagueness of the matter he agreed on. This leads to the next issue of Jerusalem. Arafats Oslo agreements failure is exacerbated by the fact that the continuation of Oslo, (Camp David) broke down with the issue of Jerusalem. This issue of Israeli-Palestinian co-existence was spoken of the most in both talks, but without decisively dealing with this tension point issues, Arafat was doomed to fail. Hence, though Arafat tried to drive and resolve the Palestinian problem peacefully, he achieve no more than his armed resolution. Bibliography: Books: Lukacs, Yehuda, 1992, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a documentary record 1967-1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barry Rubin Judith Colp Rubin, 2003, Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, Inc, New York. Bassam Abu Sharif, 2009, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. T.G. Fraser, 2008, The Arab-Israeli conflict, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Brown, Nathan. J, 2003, Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accord: Arab Palestine, University of Californian Press, London, England. Dan Cohn-Sherbok Dawoud El-Alami (eds), 2008, The Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Oneworld Publication, Oxford, England. Mehran Kamrava, 2005, The Modern Middle East, University of California Press, Ltd, London England. Mark Tesseler, 1994, A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA, Journals: Simha Flapan, 1987, The Palestinian Exodus of 1948, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer, 1987),University of California Press. Websites: UN Partition Plan, 2001, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm Yasser Arafat, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Timeline: Yasser Arafat, 2004, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4004859.stm Political Program Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council Cairo, 8 June 1974, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html Muin Rabbani, 2000, Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians: Biography of Gassan Kanafani, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Acre/Story168.html Poisoned Mossad chocolate killed PFLP leader in 1977, says book, 2006, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://web.archive.org/web/20060517211510/http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060505-102327-8910r Terrorist Organisation Profile: Black September,2007, University of Maryland, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=153 Arafat at the UN general Assembly, 2009, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal5.htm Prof. Francis A. Boyle, 2006 Palestine Independence Day, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=3864 Why did the PLO suddenly decide, in 1988, that Israel had a right to exist?, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_israel_exist_1988.php The Balfour Declaration, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm Fateh Constitution, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598a=97061 The Israeli Camp David II Proposal for Final Settlement, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm The Balfour Decleration, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm The Third Aliyah, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Third_Aliyah.html The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm UN Partition Plan, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm Simha Flapan, 1987, The Palestinian Exodus of 1948, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer, 1987), pp. 3-26,University of California Press. Yasser Arafat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Fateh Constitution, http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598a=97061 Mark Tesseler, A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA, 1994, pg. 425 Ibid, pg.426 Yasser Arafat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Muin Rabbani, 2000, Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians: Biography of Gassan Kanafani, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Acre/Story168.html Poisoned Mossad chocolate killed PFLP leader in 1977, says book, 2006, http://web.archive.org/web/20060517211510/http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060505-102327-8910r. Terrorist Organisation Profile: Black September, 2007, University of Maryland http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=153 ibid Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, Inc, New York, 2003, pg.61 Ibid, pg.61 Ibid, pg.63 Bassam Abu Sharif, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009, pg. T.G. Fraser, The Arab-Israeli conflict, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008, pg.57 Ibid, pg.88 Political Program Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council Cairo, 8 June 1974, http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html ibid Arafat at the UN general Assembly, 2009, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal5.htm Prof. Francis A. Boyle, 2006 Palestine Independence Day, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=3864 The Israeli Camp David II Proposal for Final Settlement, http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm Rubin, op.cit., pg.113 Why did the PLO suddenly decide, in 1988, that Israel had a right to exist?, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_israel_exist_1988.php Mehran Kamrava, The Modern Middle East, University of California Press, Ltd, London England, 2005, pg. 243-244 Ibid, pg.248 ibid Abu Sharif, op.cit., pg.183 History of the Palestinian Conflict History of the Palestinian Conflict In order to have a thorough understanding of the Palestinian problem, events in the early 20th century, prior to 1948 (Israeli independence) should be closely examined and understood. Many historians mark the first act which led to the Palestinian problem as the Balfour Declaration in 1917. There, it was announced that Britain shall support in the goals of Zionists, and therein strive to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, His Majestys Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people[1]. With Jewish spirits high all over the Jewish Diaspora, the third Aliyah (influx of Jews to Palestine) took place in 1919[2]. The number of Jews gradually increased in Palestine, and by 1947, the 11% population of Jews increased to a healthy 33%[3]. The immediate cause of the Palestinian problem is often dated to November 29th 1947, on which the UN announced that the British Mandate of Palestine would be divided into separate Arab and Jewish states[4]. The decree sparked great outrage from Arab nations, but was a warmly welcomed decision from the Jews and other European and North American States. Two pinnacle wars then followed which would directly influence into the Palestinian problem. The Civil War first took place as an immediate reaction eleven days after the UNs declaration. Jewish victory then led war lead to two events: the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May the 14th 1948 and the beginning of An-Nakabah, the Palestinian Exodus. In first phase of the Palestinian Exodus, 125,000 were evicted or fled from their homes, and were prevented from returning[5]. The second war that followed was the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. In this war, Israel was to face a grand Arab coalition which denounced its independence. A decisive Israeli victory, and a disastrous Arab defeat increased the final number of the Palestinian exodus to a staggering 750 000 Palestinians. By the middle of the 20th century, State of Israel was firmly established upon the former Palestinian territories, and many Palestinian settlements were either depopulated or destroyed. Hence, the Palestinian problem was herein created; an issue of Palestinians, their state, homeland, refugees, and also Palestinian-Israeli co-existence in Palestine and the stance of Jerusalem, is all to exist until this very day. Yasser Arafat and the Creation of Fatah: Born on 24 August 1929, in Cairo, Egypt, Yasser Arafat was the son of Palestinian parent[6]. During the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, he went to Palestine to join the fighting. His role in the Palestinian problem begins early on in his political life when in 1958, Arafat, with a number of his Palestinian colleagues in Kuwait, corroborated and formed the militant group Fatah. The group was dedicated to liberate Palestine by Palestinians with a means of force. The idea was to eliminate Zionist Israel re-establish Palestinian homeland and resolve the Palestinian problem. Until this very day, Fatahs main goal is, complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.[7] A Means of Force, to Settle to Problem: The Rise of Fatah, the PLO and the 70s: In the Six Day War, Fatah did play a small role in the fighting against the Israel. The humiliating Arab defeat further broke Arab morale especially that of the Palestinians who consequently lost trust in the united Arab resolution. But Fatah was to have its first main military encounter with Israel in the Battle of Karameh on March 21st 1968. With Fatah growing in stature, organised raid were conducted against Israeli settlements. Israels retaliation was to raid the Jordanian city of Karameh, a newly made stronghold for Fatah[8]. Though the battle was a military victory for Israel, it was seen as a somewhat physiological victory for Fatah. Abdallah Frangi (a Palestinian leader at the time) labelled it the political and military turning point in the Palestinian resistance, especially for Fatah.[9] Arab support was rallied behind the group, and Arafat was able to garner a number of Palestinian recruits for his group. Fatah was inducted into the PLO in 1967, and in 1969, Yasser Arafat became chairman of the PLO. Arafat transformed the organisation into becoming a strong independent organisation intended to make Palestinian appeals be heard by the world[10]. He therein became the ultimate leader of the Palestinian resurgence. By 1970, Yasser Arafat was deeply engaging in his arms resolution of the Palestinian problem. Raids into Israeli territories were organised regularly and Fatah was became an increased threat to Israel. In Arafats and Fatahs prime years of the 70s, both the PLO and Mossad (The Israeli Intelligence Agency) engaged in terrorist style warfare against each other. The Mossads known for several key assassinations, such as that of Ghassan Kanafani [11], (writer and spokesman for the Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine, considered the second largest group in the PLO after Fatah) and Dr Wadie Haddad[12] (leader of the PFLP.) For the PLO, the Fatah group, Black September were one of the key groups engaging in such activities[13]. One of the most famous works of Black September was the abduction and assassination of 11 Israeli athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games[14]. Though Arafat has never been proven to be part of the attacks, Israeli and American authorities often associate him to them. Analysis of Arafats Forceful Resolve: A number of western sources agree that Yasser Arafat tried to resolve the Palestinian problem through a means of terrorism. Its stated that he saw in terrorism, not of the horrific murders, but rather a means of gaining recognition for Palestine and Palestinian struggle. Barry and Judith Rubin, authors of Yasser Arafat: A Political Biography state, He had seen how it [terrorism] mobilized Palestinian and Arab support for the PLO; raised the Palestine issues international priority; prevented other Arab states from negotiating peace with Israel, and made many western leaders eager to appease him.[15] Often using the Fatah subgroup, Black September, there are claims that Arafat often approved operations and stemmed funds to them[16]. The argument also states that Arafat consistently throughout his life would deny such acts, thereby having a remarkable ability to escape responsibility for the terrorism he committed.[17] These views clearly classify Arafats armed approach in dealing with the Palestinian problem as acts of terrorism. They proclaim that Arafat, as a terrorist, used fear antic to drive his goal of dealing with the Palestinian struggle. The alternative view, in that Arafat was a freedom fighter is believed by many other historians and writers. Its a stance expressed by one of the closest people to Arafat, Bassam Abu Sharif (Senior Advisor to Yasser Arafat.) In his book, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, he states, In my opinion, people in the west saw Arafat through the negative propaganda which rather painted Arafat as a terrorist, rather than a freedom fighter[18]. With the Palestinian problem ignored early on by many western countries[19], it indeed was Arafat who rather globalised the issue, made it a phenomenon everyone needed to solve. This is seen to make Arafats armed role in dealing with the Palestinian problem a pivotal one. These arguments also highlight Arafat as being the sole power in the Palestinian revival following the Six Day War, It was in these disheartening circumstances that the Palestinian revival began. There was little doubt that Arafats was the decisive voice[20]. Also, those which Arafat commanded are perceived as freedom fighters by some, Yasser Arafat, who had emerged as a significant figure in the Palestinian struggle for liberation, recruited young people to the resistance movement. In 1970, Palestinian freedom fighters took control of the Gaza Strip Yasser Arafat hence provided Palestinian revitalisation in the Palestinian problem, hereby making his armed role an extremely important one. As quoted by Stephen Howe, Without the Arafat of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, there might well not have been a Palestinian national movement at all. Evaluation: Surely, Arafats armed solution is interpreted differently by different cultures and people. Arafats emergence was in bloody early days of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a time when sympathy of Palestinians and their struggle was widespread in the Muslim world whereas backing and support was provided to Israel by many western states. This makes the Palestinian debate a 2 sided debate, and consequently, an evaluation of Arafat is often affected by emotion and bias by the opposing parties. Arafats armed resolution of the Palestinian problem isnt a clear cut issue of neither terrorism nor political fanaticism. Two issues must be understood to drive this point; firstly, Arafats activities as a militant rather than a terrorist. An analysis of Yasser Arafats activates prove that he rather was present and an active member in raids and attacks against the Israeli army and troops and rather not in the alleged terrorist attacks of the PLO. Also, since he never was proven to be a terrorist, it can never be claimed he was indeed a terrorist. Secondly, a distinction must be made between the activates of Arafat and those of his bodyguards and Fatah colleagues. Often, the actions of both are confused, and when an attack by Fatah insurgents is carried of, its often stated that Arafat himself was part of then. Its true that Yasser Arafats role as leader of Palestinian spurred some to extremism, but it must be understood, though his Fatah colleagues did engaged in terrorism, he didnt. Yasser Arafat armed role in dealing with the Palestine problem should not be seen as of radicalism or extremism in thought and intent. Arafats armed struggle, though did not solve the issue, did in fact bring some results. His armed struggle brought a resurgence of the people of Palestine. With the united Arab response being habitually useless (by constant Arab defeat and loss to Israel,) only a Palestinian response seemed to solution. This but rather needed the revival of the Palestinian hope, which was severely crushed by the mid 1960 (especially with the loss of Jerusalem.) Though ludicrous it may sound, Palestinian revitalisation would not have occurred through peaceful means. The reason for this was that Palestinians where irritated and demoralised by the constant disappointment in the outcomes of Arab negotiations concerning their struggle. A symbol of an armed struggle would only then revitalise these frustrated Palestinians. With the creation of Fatah, (to liberate Palestine by Palestinians) Arafats armed struggle brought this Palestinian resurgence. Arafat also united the Palestinian people, under his armed struggle, a strong step in dealing with the Palestinian problem. In essence, hadnt this revitalisation occurred, the State of Palestine would not have been created, and future talks of peace and co-existence would not have occurred. But it should be clearly understood, that Arafat did not achieve his intended aim in his armed approach. A Peaceful Resolve for the Palestinian Problem: A Change in Contention, Olso and Camp David: In 1974, the PLO executive committee including Arafat drew up The Ten Point Program[21]. By many, is considered as the first peaceful initiative taken by Arafat to resolve the Palestinian Problem. It was a decree calling for Israel to return back liberated[22] Palestinian lands. The declaration wasnt one of change in direction, though was unique in that it did show Arafat to have a way of dealing with the problem through negotiations. The Ten Point Program was to be followed by more years of violence. After years of unrest with the rise of the terrorist group Hamas and notably the coming into being of First Intifada (which Arafat associated himself to); on the 13th and 14th of December 1988, Arafat announces a change of thought. He formally recognised the State of Israel, renounced terrorism, and revealed intentions of seeking peaceful negotiations in managing the Palestinian problem[23]. A month earlier, the Palestinian National Council (led by Arafat) announces and proclaims The Palestinian Declaration of Independence[24]. It was a new direction for Arafat in settling the Palestinian problem. In 1993 marks a historical event in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders took place in Oslo, Norway. The talks were very secretive, with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabik with their top ministers negotiating in terms to co-exist peacefully. Issues such as the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian territories, Palestinian elections, economic cooperation and regional development were all discussed. Both parties agreed on the status of each, the rights of each other, and their intentions to co-exist. With the help of the Clinton government, on 13th of September 1993, the Oslo Accord was signed. It was thought to be the basis of all future talks between both. In 2000, continuing talks took place between Israel and Palestine at Camp David, in order to finalise the conditions of the Oslo Accord[25]. The talks were to therein define the boundaries of Israel and Palestine. The status of Jerusalem (a key aspect of the Palestinian problem) was the hindrance point in the talks. In regards to the possession of Jerusalem, both parties were unable to agree on a compromise, hence making the Camp David talks a failure. Analysis of Arafats Peaceful Resolve: Arafats change in approach in dealing with the Palestinian approach (i.e. seeking peaceful measures) has often incurred various interpretations. One particular arguement is that Arafat changed his strategy of armed approach to a peaceful one in order to fool others and drive his own agenda of securing Palestinian homeland. It was a typical Arafat style solution. By being so ambiguous about his methods and goals, Arafat could hope to convince the west that he was ready for peace and convince his own colleagues that he was determined to continue the struggle[26]. These views hereby make Arafats change in approach a somewhat deceitful trick that rather had true initiative. A different viewpoint states that Arafat was rather pressured by Israeli and American officials to denounce an armed approach and terrorism[27]. Throughout the Oslo Accords, its stated that Arafat was the weaker party, and that he was rather accepted terms and condition which Israel modelled[28]. This argument thereby makes Arafats peaceful resolution of the Palestinian problem not an intuitive of his, but rather a pressure he had to comply with. In regards to the Camp David Summit, a many historians believed it was doomed to fail. Kamrava argues that both parties thought they were giving up more to the other, while the other wasnt being reasonable[29] in their compromise[30].Hence, in dealing with the most controversial issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the issue of Jerusalem, there was never to be an agreement. Hence, Arafats peaceful resolve of the Palestinian problem was always doomed to fail. Nevertheless, there are others, such as Bassim Abu Sherif, who says that the new peace path was rather genuine and promising. He claims though the US authorities did put down demands for Yasser Arafat, Arafat rather wanted his announcement to first be supported by for the PLO and Palestinians, then flexible to US demands, It was clear that Arafat wanted to be flexible enough to meet American demands, but he also wanted to make sure that he had the approval of the majority of the PLO executive committee to preserve the democracy of the decision making process of the PLO.[31] It was clear that Arafat was aware that by this time, both he and Palestinians were exhausted from fighting. Hence, this different approach in dealing with the Palestinian struggle might be interpreted as a new path, thereby creating new opportunities in dealing with the Palestinian problem. Evaluation: Arafats change in means resolving the Palestinian problem is also an issue of debate. The question of why change in direction and whether it was genuine is truly the discussion. But a deduction of Arafats activities brings an understanding of genuinity. Hence, his role in trying to resolve the Palestinian problem is herein magnified by his actions of this new resolve. Its evident that with years of unrest and the lack of advancement in resolving the Palestinian problem, Arafat needed to find a new resolve. He needed to settle the Palestinian crisis that now nearly turned into internal feuding. So, by understanding this dire need of change, it must be clear that he, Arafat, chose to change the idea of an armed struggle. It seems that he neither needed the pressure of Israel or the U.S. but rather chose to do it because of situation of the Palestinian people. Hence, it makes the resolution a genuine on Arafats part. Therefore, we see in Arafats change in thought his striving quest of solving the Palestinian problem. Arafats role in dealing with the Palestinian problem could further be evaluated by his actions at Oslo and Camp David. First of all, he dealt with the issue of Palestinian homeland in Palestine with the Oslo Accord. In this regard, Arafat failed to clearly resolve the issue, due to the vagueness of the matter he agreed on. This leads to the next issue of Jerusalem. Arafats Oslo agreements failure is exacerbated by the fact that the continuation of Oslo, (Camp David) broke down with the issue of Jerusalem. This issue of Israeli-Palestinian co-existence was spoken of the most in both talks, but without decisively dealing with this tension point issues, Arafat was doomed to fail. Hence, though Arafat tried to drive and resolve the Palestinian problem peacefully, he achieve no more than his armed resolution. Bibliography: Books: Lukacs, Yehuda, 1992, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a documentary record 1967-1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barry Rubin Judith Colp Rubin, 2003, Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, Inc, New York. Bassam Abu Sharif, 2009, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. T.G. Fraser, 2008, The Arab-Israeli conflict, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Brown, Nathan. J, 2003, Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accord: Arab Palestine, University of Californian Press, London, England. Dan Cohn-Sherbok Dawoud El-Alami (eds), 2008, The Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Oneworld Publication, Oxford, England. Mehran Kamrava, 2005, The Modern Middle East, University of California Press, Ltd, London England. Mark Tesseler, 1994, A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA, Journals: Simha Flapan, 1987, The Palestinian Exodus of 1948, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer, 1987),University of California Press. Websites: UN Partition Plan, 2001, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm Yasser Arafat, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Timeline: Yasser Arafat, 2004, Retrieved 25th January, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4004859.stm Political Program Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council Cairo, 8 June 1974, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html Muin Rabbani, 2000, Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians: Biography of Gassan Kanafani, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Acre/Story168.html Poisoned Mossad chocolate killed PFLP leader in 1977, says book, 2006, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://web.archive.org/web/20060517211510/http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060505-102327-8910r Terrorist Organisation Profile: Black September,2007, University of Maryland, Retrieved 26th January, 2010, http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=153 Arafat at the UN general Assembly, 2009, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal5.htm Prof. Francis A. Boyle, 2006 Palestine Independence Day, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=3864 Why did the PLO suddenly decide, in 1988, that Israel had a right to exist?, Retrieved 27th January, 2010, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_israel_exist_1988.php The Balfour Declaration, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm Fateh Constitution, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598a=97061 The Israeli Camp David II Proposal for Final Settlement, Retrieved 20th February, 2010, http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm The Balfour Decleration, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.htm The Third Aliyah, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Third_Aliyah.html The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948, http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm UN Partition Plan, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm Simha Flapan, 1987, The Palestinian Exodus of 1948, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Summer, 1987), pp. 3-26,University of California Press. Yasser Arafat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Fateh Constitution, http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598a=97061 Mark Tesseler, A History Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA, 1994, pg. 425 Ibid, pg.426 Yasser Arafat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat/ Muin Rabbani, 2000, Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians: Biography of Gassan Kanafani, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Acre/Story168.html Poisoned Mossad chocolate killed PFLP leader in 1977, says book, 2006, http://web.archive.org/web/20060517211510/http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060505-102327-8910r. Terrorist Organisation Profile: Black September, 2007, University of Maryland http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=153 ibid Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, Inc, New York, 2003, pg.61 Ibid, pg.61 Ibid, pg.63 Bassam Abu Sharif, Arafat and the Dream for Palestine, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009, pg. T.G. Fraser, The Arab-Israeli conflict, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008, pg.57 Ibid, pg.88 Political Program Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestine National Council Cairo, 8 June 1974, http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/docone.html ibid Arafat at the UN general Assembly, 2009, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal5.htm Prof. Francis A. Boyle, 2006 Palestine Independence Day, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=3864 The Israeli Camp David II Proposal for Final Settlement, http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm Rubin, op.cit., pg.113 Why did the PLO suddenly decide, in 1988, that Israel had a right to exist?, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_plo_israel_exist_1988.php Mehran Kamrava, The Modern Middle East, University of California Press, Ltd, London England, 2005, pg. 243-244 Ibid, pg.248 ibid Abu Sharif, op.cit., pg.183

Kids :: essays research papers

Introduction: A) Broad discussion of topics: Discuss Kristin's thesis 1. Evolution and understanding of it Macro vs. Micro VIST framework Darwin/Mayr 2. Tools-language Open vs. Close ended questions How vs. why questions Best way of asking to reveal causal framework -explain causal framework: Essentialism (Gelman), Teleology (Keleman), Bloom, and Theory of Mind Ultimate Cause (natural) Why questions Proximate cause How questions 3. Children's and adults understanding of biology/evolution/metamorphosis Evans Species-proximity to humans Mayr 4. Natural kinds vs. artifacts 5. Creationist-God...wanted, created, gave, made Naturalistic-need, adaptations, evolve, growth Intelligent design- intention, purposeful B) Rationale for this study 1. Give close-ended questions to younger children so they can understand the broad questions and because they may not be able to ellaborate or communicate well enough. Hood/Bloom: When children start answering causal questions of parents and when they start asking questions of their own. C) Hypothesis (still being established...have to wait until finished coding Kristin's data to predict the results of mine) Method subjects: 20-25 Age: 5 and 6 years Gender: 1/2 male and 1/2 female open-ended questions -divided into how and why - questions taken from coding results of previous study done by Krisitn - analyzed and took the most typical explanations Present the most frequent of those close-ended questions presented to older age group with 1 explanation per pattern : 4 reasoning patterns: (Will be inserted in paper with actual questions once the data has all been coded and analyzed from Kristin's study) Questions altered to fit all items Use item used with older kids to see if they are giving the answers the older kids did. Procedure 4 parts of the procedure will be given sequentially: 1. Warm-up 9 items (pictures) looking at interacting Ask child if the card is an animal or a human to see if they understand 2. Card practice agree/disagree face cards 3. Open-ended questions "how/why do you think..." between subjects footnote Kristin's study 4. Close-ended questions 3 humans, 3 butterflies, 3 frogs, 3 mammals, 3 artifacts order randomly determined without replacement once item is chosen: They will be told

Ernst Von Mansfeld Thirty Years

Thirty Years' War: Ernst von Mansfeld Ernst von Mansfeld was a German military commander in the Thirty Years War. Although he fought for the Protestant cause, Mansfeld was a Roman Catholic. He was considered one of the most dangerous opponent of the Catholic League. He was born in 1580 as the illegitimate son of Peter Ernst I von Mansfeld-Vorderort and Dorothea von Solms- Lich. In 1594 he served under Archduke Leopold. Then, in 1610 he Joined Frederick V and the Protestant Union. At the age 36 he led his first regiment of 2000 men.He fought for the Protestant Union until he died from illness in November, 1626. In the Bohemian Phase of the Thirty Years' War Mansfeld led an army of 2000 men, raised by the Duke of Savoy, to aid the Bohemian rebels. He successfully siege the Bohemian city of Pilsen in 1618. Mansfeld was defeated in the Battle of Sablat after being inactive for a while. At the Battle of White Mountain Masfeld and his forces were defeated, and in shortly after forced to su rrender Pilsen to the Catholics. Toward the end of the Bohemian Phase King Frederick V selected Mansfeld to lead is Bohemian troops.Following this he undertook Frederick's position in Upper Palatinate. He then moved into Rhenish Palatinate. This allowed Mansfeld to successfully defend against Johann Tserclaes, the Count of Tillys attempt at overtaking Bohemian rebel regiments. He also was defeated by Tilly twice. Mansfeld's troops were very destructive, not only to the lands of his enemy, but to the lands he was supposed to defend. During the Palatine Phase of the Thirty Years' War Mansfeld raised another of Frederick Vs armies in an effort to recover Palastine.The effort was a failure, because he was once again defeated by Tilly. Then Mansfeld was given an army of 12,000 men by James I of England. These troops were sent into the Dutch city of Breda as an attempt of relief for the Siege of Breda, but the troops were not permitted set foot on land, and Breda fell in 1625. Mansfeld le d the remainder of his army to Dutch lands, where they were once again defeated by Habsburg forces. Mansfeld continued to fght. He led his forces to Bergen-op-Zoom, a Dutch city seiged by the Spainish in 1622. This led to the relief of the city.Mansfeld spent 1624 and 1625 raising an anti-Habsburg army. He led this coalition in a march on Bohemia in 1626, but in a turn of events Mansfeld was forced to turn to Hungary. He intended on returning to his base after being defeated by Tilly once again. On his return home Mansfeld fell ill, and on November 29, 1626 he died in Bosnia. Mansfeld was a great force to be reckoned with during Thirty year's War. The Protestant Union can contribute much ot their success during the early phases ot the war. He was remarkable because he fought for the Protestant cause while remaining a faithful Catholic.

Beware of Wielding Unwieldy Jargon

Beware of Wielding Unwieldy Jargon Beware of Wielding Unwieldy Jargon Beware of Wielding Unwieldy Jargon By Mark Nichol This post pertains to the pitfalls of employing jargon to convey ideas without considering that colorful usage may confound instead of convey. I once edited a book that referred to â€Å"dual-wielding pistols,† a reference to the trademark weapons of a movie character: a brace of flintlock pistols. Mentally shaking my head in mild consternation, I revised what I considered an exceedingly awkward and misleading effort to express that the character routinely fought with both guns at once- a dynamic image commonly seen in action films, but one that depicts a strategy seldom employed in real life. As it turns out (meaning, I did some research), the phrase is valid, but not as the author employed it. Websites and publications devoted to firearms sometimes refer to dual-wielding handguns- but with dual-wielding operating as a phrasal verb, not a phrasal adjective. One can use the phrase to refer to the action of firing two handguns at once (â€Å"Is dual-wielding pistols practical?†). However, because no firearms are specifically designed to be used in parallel- presumably (meaning, my research didn’t turn up any such weaponry), there is no such thing as dual-wielding pistols- there is no reason for such phrasing. Therefore, though the phrase exists, it was not correct as employed. And even if it had been used as a phrasal verb, although any reasonably intelligent reader could be expected to understand the phrase, because it is jargon, it would be more courteous to all readers to simply write something like â€Å"wielding two pistols at once.† The lesson for writers is, one can be clear, concise, or both, but if you must choose between clear and concise, be clear. Speaking of phrasal adjectives, one hallmark of jargon is to omit hyphenation in some such phrases, as they are understood to be terms of art (words or phrases understood by a certain readership and not requiring explanation or the hand-holding treatment hyphenation provides). Therefore, although the phrasal adjective in, for example, â€Å"data-governance initiatives† would generally be hyphenated in lay publications to clarify that the reference is to initiatives regarding governance of data, not governance initiatives pertaining to data, publishers of content intended for readers familiar with the concept might consider the helpful hyphen superfluous. (For clarity and consistency, such publishers should codify this style in a manual accessible- and familiar- to a publications writers and editors.) In publications intended for the general public, however, dictionary usage should guide writers and editors in treatment of phrasal adjectives. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:What Does [sic] Mean?Connotations of 35 Words for Funny PeopleTitled versus Entitled

Difference Between Sawfly Larva and Caterpillar

Difference Between Sawfly Larva and Caterpillar Caterpillars are the larvae of butterflies and moths, which belong to the order Lepidoptera. Many caterpillars, while they do feed on leaves and plants, are considered desirable because, of course, they metamorphose into beautiful monarch butterflies, painted lady moths, and other decorative species. Sawfly larvae look similar to caterpillars, but are an entirely different kind of insect. Sawflies are related to bees and wasps, and belong to the order Hymenoptera. Like caterpillars, sawfly larvae usually feed on plant foliage, but unlike most caterpillars sawfly larvae can quickly destroy a rose garden or defoliate an entire tree. What Are Sawflies? Sawflies are flying insects that live all over the world. There are more than 8,000 species of sawflies, so called  because of the saw-like appearance of the female ovipositor, an organ used to deposit eggs in plant stems or leaves. While sawflies are related to stinging insects, they themselves do not sting. They feed on pollen and nectar, making them harmless to both people and plants. Sawfly eggs hatch into larvae which go through eight stages of growth. Typically, the larvae cluster together and are capable of eating an enormous amount of plant matter in a very short time. While sawflies are food for many animals in the wild, in cultivated areas they can be hard to manage. Sawfly management usually involves the use of chemical sprays. Sprays that work against caterpillars, however, are often ineffective against sawfly larvae. In addition, chemical sprays dont prevent sawflies from depositing their larvae. Chemical sprays should only be used when larvae are actually present. How Can You Tell Sawfly Larvae From Caterpillars? Caterpillars may have up to five pairs of abdominal prolegs (tiny limbs) but never have more than five pairs. Sawfly larvae will have six or more pairs of abdominal prolegs.  Ã‚  There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Caterpillars of the family Megalopygidae, the flannel moths,  are  unusual in having 7 pairs of prolegs (2 more pairs than any other Lepidopteran larvae). Some sawfly larvae are stem borers or leaf miners; these larvae may have no prolegs at all. Another notable difference, though it requires a closer look, is that caterpillars have tiny hooks called crochets, on the ends of their prolegs. Sawflies do not have crochets. Another, less obvious difference between caterpillars and sawfly larvae is the number of eyes. Caterpillars almost always have 12 stemmata, six on each side of the head. Sawfly larvae usually have just a single pair of stemmata. If You Have Sawflies If you have identified sawfly larvae on your trees, flowers, or foliage you may be able to simply remove them manually. If there are too many, youll probably need to spray. Choose your pesticide carefully or consult a professional: quite a few common pesticides (such as the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis) work only on Lepidopteran larvae, and will not affect sawfly larvae. Before you apply any pesticide for a caterpillar problem, be sure to count the prolegs and identify your pest correctly.

Strategic Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Strategic - Essay Example Porter argues that strategy is about ‘positioning’ – not about ‘operational effectiveness’. This essay is a critical discussion of this view. It also offers a comparison between Porter’s views and other perspectives such as those of Mazzucato’s, Mintzberg, Waters and Grant. Porter (1996 p. 62) attributes lack of sustainable profitability in an organization to the inability of management to differentiate between strategy and operational effectiveness. Under such circumstances, the tools for management such as benchmarking, outsourcing, and total quality management among others usually displace strategy, which lowers the chances of improving organizational performance through strategy. The operational effectiveness and strategy are significant for the organizational performance, but according to Porter, they are supposed to be treated differently as they operate in diverse ways. In his view, position accompanied by pattern, plan and standpoint are core to strategy. Porter’s dissatisfaction with the management that focuses on operational effectiveness rather than strategic positioning is represented in figure 1.0, whereby the total of all the available best practices within the organization or the value generated by the organization at a certain charge, available machinery, expertise, management practices, and procured inputs is represented by the productivity frontier (p. 63). This curve indicates that an improvement in the operational effectiveness leads to the advancement of the organization in the direction of the frontier. The frontier on the other hand is continuously budges outward as the company acquires new skills and machinery. In order to maintain this shift of the frontier, managers largely invest in organizational learning, career development and such activities that enhance organizational improvement. Organizational competitiveness is not

Human genetic enhancement Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 2

Human genetic enhancement - Essay Example Gene insertion may be intended to affect a single individual through somatic cell modification, or it may target the Gametes, in which case the resulting effect could be passed on to generations. The concept of genetic enhancement is not new if one considers the use of genetically modified drug products such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH), which before 1985 could only be obtained in limited quantities from cadaveric pituitary glands but now can be produced using recombinant DNA technology (Stock, 2003). When its supply was limited HGH could only be prescribed to children with short stature caused by classical growth hormone deficiency however with the advent of recombinant DNA manufacturing some physicians are recommending use of HGH for nonhormone deficient children who are below normal height. After reports were heard of a pregnancy achieved through Human cloning program a bill was set up by the Senate that would outlaw all forms of cloning including biometric research aimed at crea ting embryonic stem cells that would not be rejected when transplanted, simply known as therapeutic cloning, and the bill had the support of then president George W. Bush. Any embryonic researcher was threatened with extreme criminal penalties (10 years in jail). An executive order on March 9, 2009 with its main aim of removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cell was introduced and it highlighted the advances over the past decade in the research field was very promising and would support it with federal funds. The order was to remove all forms of limitations on scientific inquiry expand NIH support on human stem cell research and enhance American scientist's contribution in new discoveries enhance the reputation for the fact that the U.S.A houses the most powerful biometric research facility in the world. There are issues regarding human genetic modifications and they bring up major questions like what extent is permitted by law, the risk involved, and availability of research benefits to people from all walks of life, use of animal model with the aim of human application. Gene transfer at an embryonic stage through a technique called pronuclear micro injections is being tested in animals but based on the experiments it suggests that embryo gene transfer is unsafe and its use results in random integration of the donor DNA, a lack of control of the number of gene copies inserted,rearrangement of host genetic material and the process was necessarily followed by nuclear transfer of enucleated oocytes led to low birth rate and a very high rate of late pregnancy loss or newborn death thus making gene transfer at the embryonic stage for enhancement would reach far beyond the means of acceptable medical intervention (Stock, 2003). But scientists have crossed that line, they have been able to change the DNA in a human egg and might easily ignore the goal which is prevent rare but horrible disorders in babies, caused by defects in the DNA that only passed down from a mother to a kid. Human genetic enhancement is a controversial topic and to make sense of this requires ethical reflection between Therapy and Enhancement. Both proponents and critics of bioenhancemet have argued that the line between therapy and enhancement is very thin. Therapy includes medical interventions that restore human functioning to species typical norms. One example of human genetic