MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

1. Both documents are structured similarly. They begin with their religious history, talking about the discrimination they of their groups. They also both illustrate the idea that they have an inherent right to the land. Both documents pose a sense of entitlement to the land and justification throughout their history.
2. Religion is very important in both documents. Both documents justified their right to the land with religion. The first sentence of the Palestinian declaration says, “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful Palestine, the land of the three monotheistic faiths, is where the Palestinian Arab people was born, on which it grew, developed and excelled.” The very first sentence of their declaration shows that religion will play a key role in the declaration.
3. Both groups identify themselves as groups with a long history. Groups that have been subjected to discrimination and displacement throughout their long history. They define themselves as victims.
4. The Israeli declaration does not explicitly mention Palestine or the Palestinian people, but comments on advancing the entirety of the Middle-East, alluding to creating peace in the Middle-East. They did not explicitly mention any work towards mending relations with Palestine though. Palestine does mention Israel with comments of them blocking their right to the land. They do not make any positive comments about Israel in their declaration.
5. Alluded to in 4, Israel envisions advancing the entirety of the Middle-East and Palestine envisions themselves above Israel.

1. When looking at structure, one can see many similarities within the two documents. They both begin with brief religious histories for each country respectively talking essentially about religious displacements and hardships. Then, they both list statements regarding their independences. Overall, the structure is almost identical within the two documents.
2.  Religion is integral to both nations respectively. They center religion around the holy land which they fight for. Therefore, religion is a defining factor while at the same time causing tension over the holy land.
3. The Israelis view Palestinians as invaders or trespassers. They see these people who settled on land as aliens who are now vying to reclaim what isn’t rightfully theirs. Israelis think that they own this land due to and that is was given to them by god. However, Palestine view Jewish people as invaders who wrongfully take land. They believe there’s no basis for Israelis in their nation.
4. The israelis simply seek peace. They are a bit of a lone wolf in that aspect since the surrounding nations do not respect the “invasion” of Jewish people into their nations.

• The two declarations are similar in some respects in regards to their structure: both open with a historical argument that their “people” have a historical claim to the land of Israel; that it is both historically and culturally “theirs” based on history. In both cases, the documents then move on to diplomatic treaties that would seem to support their claims, and finally end by welcoming all other members of their ethnic group into the new state – for Israel, the Jewish diaspora, and for the Palestinians, all Arabs.
• Both invoke and mention religion – the Israelis note that it is the sabbath and use to Torhic events to justify their claims, in addition to treating their ethnicity and religion as being the same. The Palestinians invoke God at the beginning, but cast their land as having been a place of many religions, as though to imply their quest for independence is not merely religious in origin.
• In both documents the authors define themselves  in both religious and ethic terms, though for the Jews these aspects are treated as one and the same (they invite members of the “Jewish Diaspora” to come immigrate to their state) and for the Palestinians they are treated as separate, with an emphasis on ethnicity, as the authors refer to themselves as “Palestinian Arabs” and say that all Arabs are welcome in their state.
• The Israelis do not mention the Palestinians in their document – they more or less seem to ignore their “foes” existence, perhaps so as not to legitimize them. The Palestinians refer to the Israelis as such, thus identifying their enemy as the forces of a specific state and not Jews or Judaism in general, though they are clearly embittered by the presence of Israeli forces in what they see as their land.
• The Israelis say that they want to have friendly relations with other states while not mentioning the Palestinians – this could mean that they would like to cooperate with a completely separate Palestinians state. It could also mean that they are deliberately ignoring the existence of an Arab people with legitimate claim to the land in Israel – it is perhaps deliberately unclear. Meanwhile, the Palestinians want the Israelis specifically removed – this may simply mean they want political autonomy, or it may mean they want to remove all Jews. For both documents, their intent towards each other is not abundantly clear.

1. Each document takes into account the strife caused by impeding European powers or otherwise removing the native people from the lands at which they identify with. They both require that they are internationally recognized as states in the global perspective and wish to be respected within the global community.
2. Religion is heavy-handedly laid into each document as a right given by the governing body to protect, and each states that there will be no form of discrimination due to the “race, religion, or sex” of the individual. However, the viewpoints of how religion has shaped their identity have differed. The Israelis feel that they have followed their religion through their trying times as a way to keep with their morals that they believe in, while the Palestinians believe in their power that comes from their beliefs.
3. The Israelis have written a compassionate, open, mediating document to represent that they are not angry, but frustrated, over the injustices that have been inflicted upon them. They band together through these hardships and wish for their political independence. The Palestinians form an identity through the land that they have been removed from and are upset over the territory that they have lost, wishing to reclaim the land that is sacred to their religion.
4. The Israeli Declaration of Independence makes no connection or mention to the Palestinian people, instead forming an idea of a more harmonious and prosperous Middle East, supported by “The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.” However, due to the lack of any mention of the Palestinians as if they did not exist, the Israelis make no effort to say that they are welcome in Israel, instead saying “eveyone” and “surrounding states,” where they almost absolutely believe that these Palestinians would occupy. This is countered by the Palestinian perspective, in which they explicitly mention the “…Israeli forces, the willed dispossession and expulsion from their ancestral homes of the majority of Palestine’s civilian inhabitants…” The Palestinians make several other references to the Israelis, none of which positive, placing themselves above the other with the sole intention of removal.
5. See 4

* Taking into account both structure and content, in what ways do these two documents resemble each other?
These two documents illustrate the idea that their independence has been earned, and they are victims of acts of terror. I think it is interested to note that both of these countries feel inherently right and that the actions of both nations are justified throughout their history.
* What role does religion play in each document?
Religion plays a very heavy role in both documents. In fact, in the Israeli document, the Israeli’s say “here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books”. They portray themselves as true owners over the land.
* How does each of these two groups define themselves?
Again, both sides portray themselves as victims. Isreal illustrates the hardships they have gone through over the decades with the Holocaust and strongly feel the need to be liberated when they say, “ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.” These words are very powerful and the Israeli people feel victimized and underrepresented. On the contrary, Palestine claims, “We render special tribute to that brave Palestinian Woman, guardian of sustenance and Life, keeper of our people’s perennial flame. To the souls of our sainted martyrs, to the whole of our Palestinian Arab people, to all free and honorable peoples everywhere, we pledge that our struggle shall be continued until the occupation ends, and the foundation of our sovereignty and independence shall be fortified accordingly.” It is understood through these passages that both sides have experienced great heartache and are obligated to their freedom as citizens.
* How does each define the other?
They treat each other as the enemy and as a nation that terrorizes the other. For example, Palestine ” calls upon all peace-and freedom-loving peoples and states to assist it in the attainment of its objectives, to provide it with security, to alleviate the tragedy of its people, and to help it terminate Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
* How does each envision the place of the other in their new state?
They envision a world of peace and unity, where freedom is welcomed to everyone in it.

1.) In terms of structure and content, the two declarations are very similar. Both groups talk about the importance of the area due to their religion as well as they talk about their histories of discrimination and displacement as a group. I thought it was interesting to see how both groups saw the land of Israel as a holy land and the land where their people were born. Their main argument for the right to said land was that of historical right and connection.

2.) Religion plays an enormous role in each document. It acts as a justification for their right to the land in which they want independence in. Religion also serves a a tool of unification for both of the groups as well. When you have a group such as the Jews or the Palestinians/Arabs, who have been constantly displaced and separated throughout  history, due to unjust instances of persecution and violence, there comes a time when are are a ton of different groups around the world who lead similar, but different lives because of where they are. However, their religion can bring them together under one nation. Thus,  both groups used religion to show the globe that they deserved a territory in which they could live their likes united and in peace.

3.) Both groups define themselves as a group of people with origins that date back to ancient times. They identify as  groups  who have been subject to harm and horror. They have been displaced as a result of political and religious violence. By having a Palestinian or Jewish state, these groups would be able to  unite their people once again.

4.) In their declaration the Jews don’t necessarily put any disdain onto the Palestinians. They argue that the Palestinians can live in Israel, free of discrimination based on religion or race. This is said in  hopes to preserve peace and unity among  the two groups. However, Palestinians, though they don’t explicitly say it, identify the Jews as blocking their path to unification and a free Palestinian state.

5.) Like previously stated, Jews view Palestinians as free and equal members of their society, safe from religious and ethnic intolerance. Palestinians, however, would like to  see a free  and separate state from Israel. They would like to separate themselves from Jewish rule, not interested in keeping a united  state where  they would rule over Jews.