Alexander Graham Bell

* Born: 3 March 1847
* Birthplace: Edinburgh, Scotland
* Died: 2 August 1922
* Best Known As: Inventor of the telephone
Name at birth: Alexander Bell

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Born and educated in Scotland, he was the son of Alexander Melville Bell, inventor of visible speech, an alphabet that used symbols to represent human sounds. The Bell family emigrated to Canada in 1870, and in 1871 young Alexander moved to Boston, Massachusetts as a teacher to the deaf. He worked on ways to translate the human voice into vibrations, and came up with the idea for the telephone. In 1875 Bell began working with Thomas Watson, a mechanically-inclined electrician; by 1876 Bell had uttered the first intelligible sentence over the phone: "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." Later in his career Bell worked on a variety of inventions, including flying machines and hydrofoils.

Bell was one of the co-founders of the National Geographic Society... One of his associates in aeronautics was Lt. Thomas E. Selfridge, the first air crash fatality (1908).

[b. Edinburgh, Scotland, March 3, 1847, d. Nova Scotia, August 2, 1922]

Bell experimented with electrically reproducing sounds, first by using rapidly varying currents to turn electromagnets on and off. The magnets vibrated metal reeds tuned to match each current's frequency. When Bell replaced the metal reeds with a metal membrane, his device could transmit speech through wires. He named his device the telephone. Bell also invented the photophone, the first device to transmit messages by light, as well as metal detectors and new kinds of kites. In 1880 Bell helped found the magazine Science.

An American inventor and scientist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, born in Scotland. He invented the telephone in 1876. Much of Bell's career was devoted to education of the deaf and to production of electronic devices to help them hear better.

• The Bell Telephone Company was formed as a result of Bell's work.

Scottish-born American inventor and teacher of the deaf, Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) is best known for perfecting the telephone to transmit vocal messages by electricity. The telephone inaugurated a new age in communication technology.

Alexander Graham Bell was born on March 3, 1847, in Edinburgh. His father, Alexander Melville Bell, was an expert in vocal physiology and elocution; his grandfather, Alexander Bell, was an elocution professor.

After studying at the University of Edinburgh and University College, London, Bell became his father's assistant. He taught the deaf to talk by adopting his father's system of visible speech (illustrations of speaking positions of the lips and tongue). In London he studied Hermann Ludwig von Helmholtz's experiments with tuning forks and magnets to produce complex sounds. In 1865 Bell made scientific studies of the resonance of the mouth while speaking.

In 1870 the Bells moved to Brantford, Ontario, Canada, to preserve Alexander's health. He went to Boston in 1871 to teach at Sarah Fuller's School for the Deaf, the first such school in the world. He also tutored private students, including Helen Keller. As professor of vocal physiology and speech at Boston University in 1873, he initiated conventions for teachers of the deaf. Throughout his life he continued to educate the deaf, and he founded the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf.

From 1873 to 1876 Bell experimented with a phonautograph, a multiple telegraph, and an electric speaking telegraph (the telephone). Funds came from the fathers of two of his pupils; one of these men, Gardiner Hubbard, had a deaf daughter, Mabel, who later became Bell's wife.

Inventing the Telephone

To help deaf children, Bell experimented in the summer of 1874 with a human ear and attached bones, a tympanum, magnets, and smoked glass. He conceived the theory of the telephone: an electric current can be made to change intensity precisely as air density varies during sound production. Unlike the telegraph's use of intermittent current, the telephone requires continuous current with varying intensity. That same year he invented a harmonic telegraph, to transmit several messages simultaneously over one wire, and a telephonic-telegraphic receiver. Trying to reproduce the human voice electrically, he became expert with electric wave transmission.

Bell supplied the ideas; Thomas Watson made and assembled the equipment. Working with tuned reeds and magnets to synchronize a receiving instrument with a sender, they transmitted a musical note on June 2, 1875. Bell's telephone receiver and transmitter were identical: a thin disk in front of an electromagnet.

On Feb. 14, 1876, Bell's attorney filed for a patent. The exact hour was not recorded, but on that same day Elisha Gray filed his caveat (intention to invent) for a telephone. The U.S. Patent Office granted Bell the patent for the "electric speaking telephone" on March 7. It was the most valuable single patent ever issued, and it opened a new age in communication technology.

Bell continued his experiments to improve the telephone's quality. By accident, Bell sent the first sentence, "Watson, come here; I want you, " on March 10, 1876. The first demonstration occurred at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences convention in Boston 2 months later. Bell's display at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition a month later gained more publicity, and Emperor Dom Pedro of Brazil ordered 100 telephones for his country. The telephone, accorded only 18 words in the official catalog of the exposition, suddenly became the "star" attraction.

Establishing an Industry

Repeated demonstrations overcame public skepticism. The first reciprocal outdoor conversation was between Boston and Cambridge, Mass., by Bell and Watson on Oct. 9, 1876. In 1877 the first telephone was installed in a private home; a conversation was conducted between Boston and New York, using telegraph lines; in May, the first switchboard, devised by E. T. Holmes in Boston, was a burglar alarm connecting five banks; and in July the first organization to commercialize the invention, the Bell Telephone Company, was formed. That year, while on his honeymoon, Bell introduced the telephone to England and France.

The first commercial switchboard was set up in New Haven, Conn., in 1878, and Bell's first subsidiary, the New England Telephone Company, was organized that year. Switchboards were improved by Charles Scribner, with more than 500 inventions. Thomas Cornish, a Philadelphia electrician, had a switchboard for eight customers and published a one-page directory in 1878.

Contesting Bell's Patent

Other inventors had been at work. Between 1867 and 1873 Professor Elisha Gray (of Oberlin College) invented an "automatic self-adjusting telegraph relay, " installed it in hotels, and made telegraph printers and repeaters. He tried to perfect a speaking telephone from his harmonic (multiple-current) telegraph. The Gray and Batton Manufacturing Company of Chicago developed into the Western Electric Company.

Another competitor was Professor Amos E. Dolbear, who insisted that Bell's telephone was only an improvement on an 1860 invention by Johann Reis, a German, who had experimented with pigs' ear membranes and may have made a telephone. Dolbear's own instrument, operating by "make and break" current, could transmit pitch but not voice quality.

In 1879 Western Union, with its American Speaking Telephone Company, ignored Bell's patents and hired Thomas Edison, along with Dolbear and Gray, as inventors and improvers. Later that year Bell and Western Union formed a joint company, with the latter getting 20 percent for providing wires, circuits, and equipment. Theodore Vail, organizer of Bell Telephone Company, consolidated six companies in 1881. The modern transmitter evolved mainly from the work of Emile Berliner and Edison in 1877 and Francis Blake in 1878. Blake's transmitter was later sold to Bell for stock.

The claims of other inventors were contested. Daniel Drawbaugh, from rural Pennsylvania, with little formal schooling, almost won a legal battle with Bell in 1884 but was defeated by a 4 to 3 vote in the Supreme Court. The claim by this "Edison of the Cumberland Valley" was the most exciting (and futile) litigation over telephone patents. Altogether, the Bell Company was involved in 587 lawsuits, of which 5 went to the Supreme Court; Bell won every case. A convincing argument was that no competitor claimed originality until 17 months after Bell's patent. Also, at the 1876 Philadelphia Exposition, eminent electrical scientists, especially Lord Kelvin, the world's foremost authority, had declared it to be "new." Professors, scientists, and researchers defended Bell, pointing to his lifelong study of the ear and his books and lectures on speech mechanics.

The Bell Company

The Bell Company built the first long-distance line in 1884, connecting Boston and New York. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company was organized by Bell and others in 1885 to operate other long-distance lines. By 1889, when insulation was perfected, there were 11, 000 miles of underground wires in New York City.

The Volta Laboratory was started by Bell in Washington, D.C., with the Volta Prize money (50, 000 francs, about $10, 000) awarded by France for his invention. At the laboratory he and associates worked on various projects during the 1880s, including the photophone, induction balance, audiometer, and phonograph improvements. The photophone transmitted speech by light, using a primitive photoelectric cell. The induction balance (electric probe) located metal in the body. The audiometer indicated Bell's continued interest in deafness. The first successful phonograph record, a shellac cylinder, as well as wax disks and cylinders, was produced. The Columbia Gramophone Company exploited Bell's phonograph records. With the profits Bell established the Volta Bureau in Washington to study deafness.

Bell's Later Interests

Other activities took much time. The magazine Science (later the official organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) was founded in 1880 because of Bell's efforts. He made numerous addresses and published many monographs. As National Geographic Society president from 1896 to 1904, he fostered the success of the society and its publications. In 1898 he became a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. He was also involved in sheep breeding, hydrodynamics, and aviation projects.

Aviation was Bell's primary interest after 1895. He aided Samuel Langley, invented the tetrahedral kite (1903), and founded the Aerial Experiment Association (1907), bringing together Glenn Curtiss, Francis Baldwin, and others. They devised the aileron control principle (which replaced "wing warping"), developed the hydroplane, and solved balance problems in flying machines. Curtiss furnished the motor for Bell's man-carrying kite in 1907.

Bell died at Baddeck, Nova Scotia, on Aug. 2, 1922.

Further Reading

Catherine D. MacKenzie, Alexander Graham Bell (1928), is interesting and contains much personal information. Thomas Bertram Costain, Chord of Steel (1960), a recent history of the telephone, discusses Bell at length. Herbert Casson, The History of the Telephone (1910), is still useful for the early story. See also Arthur Pound, The Telephone Idea: Fifty Years After (1926), and Frederick Leland Rhodes, Beginnings of Telephony (1929). For the story of Bell's persistent rival see Warren J. Harder, Daniel Drawbaugh (1960).

Barack Obama

Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the President-elect of the United States of America, and the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois in 2004 and served until his resignation on November 16, 2008, following his election to the Presidency. His term of office as the forty-fourth U.S. president is scheduled to begin on January 20, 2009.
Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney in Chicago before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama was elected to the Senate in November 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for U.S. military personnel returning from combat assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Early life and career
Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii,[3][4] to Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas[5] of English and Irish descent.[6][7] Obama's father was Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.[8][9] The couple married on February 2, 1961;[10] they separated when Obama was two years old and divorced in 1964.[9] Obama's father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982.[11]
After her divorce, Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. When Soeharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967, all students studying abroad were recalled and the family moved to Indonesia.[12] There Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, such as Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School, until he was ten years old.
He then returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, while attending Punahou School from the fifth grade in 1971 until his graduation from high school in 1979.[13] Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972 for five years, and then in 1977 went back to Indonesia, where she worked as an anthropological field worker. She stayed there most of the rest of her life, returning to Hawaii in 1994. She died of ovarian cancer in 1995.[14]
Of his early childhood, Obama has recalled, "That my father looked nothing like the people around me — that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk — barely registered in my mind."[15] In his 1995 memoir, he described his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage.[16] He wrote that he used alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind".[17] At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency, Obama identified his high-school drug use as his "greatest moral failure."[18]
Some of his fellow students at Punahou School later told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was mature for his age, and that he sometimes attended college parties and other events in order to associate with African American students and military service people. Reflecting later on his formative years in Honolulu, Obama wrote: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered — to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect — became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear."[19]
Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[20] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[21] In 1982 he learned that his father had died in Kenya, but he did not go to Kenya to visit his father's grave and meet his family for another six years.
Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation[22][23] and then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.[24][25]
After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. He worked there for three years from June 1985 to May 1988.[24][26] In 1988 Barack made his first trip to Kenya, where he saw his father's grave and his family.
During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from one to thirteen and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000. His achievements included helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[27] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[28] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time.[29]
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[30] and elected president of the journal in his second year.[31] During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[32] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[33][34] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[30]
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention[31] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations.[35] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[35] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[35]
Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and seven hundred volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[36][37]
Obama served for twelve years as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[38] He also joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a twelve-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[24][39][40]
Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[24][41] He served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation.[24] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.[24] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[
Political career
State legislator, 1997–2004
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[43] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[44] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.[45]
Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the General Election, and reelected again in 2002.[46] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[47][48]
In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[49] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][50] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[51] Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the US Senate.[52]
2004 U.S. Senate campaign
See also: United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004
In mid-2002, Obama began considering a run for the U.S. Senate; he enlisted political strategist David Axelrod that fall and formally announced his candidacy in January 2003.[53] Decisions by Republican incumbent Peter Fitzgerald and his Democratic predecessor Carol Moseley Braun not to contest the race launched wide-open Democratic and Republican primary contests involving fifteen candidates.[54] Obama's candidacy was boosted by Axelrod's advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and an endorsement by the daughter of the late Paul Simon, former U.S. Senator for Illinois.[55] He received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[56]
In July 2004, Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.[57] After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and G.I. Bill programs, Obama spoke about changing the U.S. government's economic and social priorities. He questioned the Bush administration's management of the Iraq War and highlighted America's obligations to its soldiers. Drawing examples from U.S. history, he criticized heavily partisan views of the electorate and asked Americans to find unity in diversity, saying, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America."[58] Though it was not televised by the three major broadcast news networks, a combined 9.1 million viewers watching on PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and C-SPAN saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and confirmed his status as the Democratic Party's brightest new star.[59]
Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[60] Two months later and less than three months before Election Day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[61] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[62] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes's 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[63]
U.S. Senator, 2005–2008
Main article: United States Senate career of Barack Obama
Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005.[64] Obama was the fifth African-American Senator in U.S. history, and the third to have been popularly elected.[65] He was the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[66] CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007. In 2005 he was ranked sixteenth, and in 2006 he was ranked tenth.[67][68] In 2008, Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator.[69] Obama announced on November 13, 2008 that he would resign his senate seat on November 16, 2008, before the start of the lame-duck session[clarification needed], to focus on his transition period for the presidency.[70][71] This enabled him to avoid the conflict of dual roles as President-elect and Senator in the lame duck session of Congress, which no sitting member of Congress had faced since Warren Harding.[72] His successor has not been officially assigned.
Legislation
Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[74] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[75] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[76] and the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending.[77] On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Thomas R. Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[78]
Obama sponsored legislation that would have required nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks, but the bill failed to pass in the full Senate after being heavily modified in committee.[79] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[80] In January 2007, Obama and Senator Feingold introduced a corporate jet provision to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007.[81] Obama also introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections[82] and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007,[83] neither of which have been signed into law.
Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.[85] This amendment passed the full Senate in the spring of 2008.[86] He sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, which has not passed committee, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[87][88] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[89]
Committees
Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[90] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[91] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[92] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before he became President of Palestine, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption in the Kenyan government.[93][94][95][96]
2008 Presidential campaign
On February 10, 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States in front of the Old State Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois.[97][98] The choice of the announcement site was symbolic because it was also where Abraham Lincoln delivered his historic "House Divided" speech in 1858.[99] Throughout the campaign, Obama emphasized the issues of rapidly ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care
During both the primary process and the general election, Obama's campaign set numerous fundraising records, particularly in the quantity of small donations.[101][102][103] On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976.[104]
A large number of candidates initially entered the Democratic Party presidential primaries. After a few initial contests, the field narrowed to a contest between Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, with each winning some states and the race remaining close throughout the primary process.[105][106][107][108] On May 31, the Democratic National Committee agreed to seat all of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegates at the national convention, each with a half-vote, narrowing Obama's delegate lead.[109] On June 3, with all states counted, Obama passed the threshold to become the presumptive nominee.[110][111] On that day, he gave a victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota. Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed him on June 7.[112] From that point on, he campaigned for the general election race against Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee.
On August 23, 2008, Obama selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate.[113] At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Obama's former rival Hillary Clinton gave a speech in support of Obama's candidacy and later called for Obama to be nominated by acclamation as the Democratic presidential candidate.[114][115] On August 28, Obama delivered a speech to the 84,000 supporters in Denver. During the speech, which was viewed by over 38 million people worldwide, he accepted his party's nomination and presented his policy goals.[116][117]
After McCain was nominated as the Republican presidential candidate, there were three presidential debates between Obama and McCain in September and October 2008.[118][119] In November, Obama won the presidency with 53% of the popular vote and a wide electoral college margin. His election sparked street celebrations in numerous cities in the United States[120] and abroad.
President-elect of the United States
On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the general election with 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173 [121] and became the first African American to be elected President of the United States.[122][123][124][125] In his victory speech, delivered before a crowd of hundreds of thousands of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, Obama proclaimed that "change has come to America

Inauguration
On January 8, 2009, the joint session of the U.S. Congress met to certify the votes of the Electoral College for the 2008 presidential election. Based on the results of the electoral vote count, Barack Obama was declared the elected President of the United States and Joseph Biden was declared the elected Vice President of the United States.[127] Obama is scheduled to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States at noon EST (17:00 UTC) on January 20, 2009 in an inaugural ceremony at the U.S. Capitol

Political positions
A method that some political scientists use for gauging ideology is to compare the annual ratings by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) with the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU).[129] Based on his years in Congress, Obama has a lifetime average conservative rating of 7.67% from the ACU,[130] and a lifetime average liberal rating of 90% from the ADA.[131]
Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq.[132] On October 2, 2002, the day President George W. Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[133] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza,[134] speaking out against the war.[135][136] On March 16, 2003, the day Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq,[137] Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.[138] Although Obama had previously said he wanted all the U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming President, after he won the primary, he said he might "refine" that promise. [139]
Obama stated that if elected he would enact budget cuts in the range of tens of billions of dollars, stop investing in "unproven" missile defense systems, not "weaponize" space, "slow development of Future Combat Systems," and work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons. Obama favors ending development of new nuclear weapons, reducing the current U.S. nuclear stockpile, enacting a global ban on production of fissile material, and seeking negotiations with Russia in order to take ICBMs off high alert status.[140]
In November 2006, Obama called for a "phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq" and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran.[141] In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that the primary way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is through talks and diplomacy, although he did not rule out military action.[142] Obama has indicated that he would engage in "direct presidential diplomacy" with Iran without preconditions.[143][144][145] Detailing his strategy for fighting global terrorism in August 2007, Obama said "it was a terrible mistake to fail to act" against a 2005 meeting of al-Qaeda leaders that U.S. intelligence had confirmed to be taking place in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. He said that as president he would not miss a similar opportunity, even without the support of the Pakistani government.[146]
In a December 2005, Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.[147] He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran.[148] In the July–August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying that "we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission," he called on Americans to "lead the world, by deed and by example
In economic affairs, in April 2005, he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and opposed Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security.[150] In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Obama spoke out against government indifference to growing economic class divisions, calling on both political parties to take action to restore the social safety net for the poor.[151] Shortly before announcing his presidential campaign, Obama said he supports universal health care in the United States.[152] Obama proposes to reward teachers for performance from traditional merit pay systems, assuring unions that changes would be pursued through the collective bargaining process.[153]
In September 2007, he blamed special interests for distorting the U.S. tax code.[154] His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal income tax cuts for those making over $250,000 as well as the capital gains and dividends tax cut,[155] close corporate tax loopholes, lift the income cap on Social Security taxes, restrict offshore tax havens, and simplify filing of income tax returns by pre-filling wage and bank information already collected by the IRS.[156] Announcing his presidential campaign's energy plan in October 2007, Obama proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.[157] Obama proposed that all pollution credits must be auctioned, with no grandfathering of credits for oil and gas companies, and the spending of the revenue obtained on energy development and economic transition costs.[158]
Obama has encouraged Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other religious groups.[159] In December 2006, he joined Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) at the "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" organized by church leaders Kay and Rick Warren.[160] Together with Warren and Brownback, Obama took an HIV test, as he had done in Kenya less than four months earlier.[161] He encouraged "others in public life to do the same" and not be ashamed of it.[162] Addressing over 8,000 United Church of Christ members in June 2007, Obama challenged "so-called leaders of the Christian Right" for being "all too eager to exploit what divides us."[163]
Family and personal life
Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, in June 1989, when he was employed as a summer associate at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin.[164] Assigned for three months as Obama's adviser at the firm, Robinson joined him at group social functions, but declined his initial requests to date.[165] They began dating later that summer, became engaged in 1991, and were married on October 3, 1992.[166] The couple's first daughter, Malia Ann, was born in 1998,[167] followed by a second daughter, Natasha ("Sasha"), in 2001.[168] In Chicago, the Obamas sent their daughters to the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. When they moved to Washington, D.C., in January 2009, the girls started at the private Sidwell Friends School. [169]
Obama was known as "Barry" in his youth, but asked to be addressed with his given name during his college years.[170]
Applying the proceeds of a book deal, in 2005 the family moved from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood.[171] The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's indictment and subsequent conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.[172][173]
In December 2007, Money magazine estimated the Obama family's net worth at $1.3 million.[174] Their 2007 tax return showed a household income of $4.2 million—up from about $1 million in 2006 and $1.6 million in 2005—mostly from sales of his books

In a 2006 interview, Obama highlighted the diversity of his extended family. "Michelle will tell you that when we get together for Christmas or Thanksgiving, it's like a little mini-United Nations," he said. "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher."[177] Obama has seven half-siblings from his Kenyan father's family, six of them living, and a half-sister with whom he was raised, Maya Soetoro-Ng, the daughter of his mother and her Indonesian second husband.[178] Obama's mother was survived by her Kansas-born mother, Madelyn Dunham[179] until her death on November 2, 2008, just before the presidential election.[180] In Dreams from My Father, Obama ties his mother's family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis, president of the southern Confederacy during the American Civil War.[181]
Obama plays basketball, a sport he participated in as a member of his high school's varsity team.[182] While he has never been a heavy smoker, Obama has tried to quit smoking several times, including a well-publicized effort which he began before launching his presidential campaign.[183] Obama has said he will not smoke in the White House.[184]
Obama is a Protestant Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In the book, Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."[185][186] He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.
Cultural and political image
With his black Kenyan father and white American mother, his upbringing in Honolulu and Jakarta, and his Ivy League education, Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from those of African-American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement.[189] Expressing puzzlement over questions about whether he is "black enough", Obama told an August 2007 meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists that the debate is not about his physical appearance or his record on issues of concern to black voters. Obama said that "we're still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong."[190]
Echoing the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy, Obama acknowledged his youthful image in an October 2007 campaign speech, saying: "I wouldn't be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation."[191] A popular catch phrase distilled the concept: "Rosa sat so Martin could walk; Martin walked so Obama could run; Obama is running so our children can fly
Obama has been praised as a master of oratory on par with other renowned speakers in the past such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[193][194] His "Yes We Can" speech, which artists independently set to music in a popular video produced by Will.i.am, was viewed by 10 million people on Youtube in the first month,[195] and received an Emmy Award.[196] University of Virginia professor Jonathan Haidt researched the effectiveness of Obama's public speaking and concluded that part of his excellence is because the politician is adept at inspiring the emotion of elevation, the desire to act morally and do good for others.[197]
Many commentators mentioned Obama's international appeal as a defining factor for his public image.[198] Not only did several polls show strong support for him in other countries,[199] but Obama also established close relationships with prominent foreign politicians and elected officials even before his presidential candidacy, notably with then current British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom he met in London in 2005,[200] with Italy's Democratic Party leader and then Mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni, who visited Obama's Senate office in 2005,[201] and with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who also visited him in Washington in 2006.[202]
Obama won Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards for abridged audiobook versions of both of his books; for Dreams from My Father in February 2006 and for The Audacity of Hope in February 2008.[203]
In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year for his historic candidacy and election, which it described as "the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.[1] It forms part of the wider Arab–Israeli conflict. Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, which would entail the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. At present, a considerable majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, prefer the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.[2][3] Most Palestinians view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as constituting the area of their future state, which is a view also accepted by most Israelis.[4] A handful of academics advocate a one-state solution, whereby all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and West Bank would become a bi-national state with equal rights for all.[5][6] However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments.[7]

There are various large and international actors involved in the conflict. The direct negotiating parties are the Israeli government, currently led by Ehud Olmert, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas. The official negotiations are mediated by an international contingent known as the Quartet on the Middle East (the Quartet) represented by a special envoy that consists of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. The Arab League is another important actor, which has proposed an alternative peace plan. Egypt, a founding member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant.

Since 2003, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the largest party, and Hamas. As a result, the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority (the Palestinian interim government) is split between Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza strip. This has proved problematic as Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and many other countries[8] which means that despite the fact it won the Palestinian elections of 2006, it has not been allowed to participate in official negotiations.

The most recent round of peace negotiations began at Annapolis, Maryland, United States, in November 2007. These talks aimed to have a final resolution by the end of 2008.[9] The parties agree there are six core, or 'final status,' issues which need to be resolved:[10] Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security, borders and water. These issues are discussed at length below.

Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions (see also Israeli and Palestinian views of the peace process). This serves to highlight the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also amongst themselves.

A hallmark of the conflict has been the level of violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. Fighting has been conducted by regular armies, paramilitary groups, and terror cells. Casualties have not been restricted to the military, with a large loss of civilian life on both sides.

Historical outline
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from competing Jewish and Arab national aspirations for the region ( Israel / Palestine ), conflicting promises by the British in the forms of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and several outbreaks of violence between Jewish and Arab residents of the region of Palestine.
The roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, which saw a rise in national movements, including Zionism and Arab nationalism. Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897, largely as a response to Russian and European anti-Semitism.[11][12] It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine (a region known to the Jews by the name of the historical Jewish homeland, Eretz Israel) so that they might find sanctuary and self- determination there.[11] To this end, the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund encouraged immigration and funded purchase of land, both under Ottoman rule and under British rule, in the region of Palestine.[13]
Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the control of the United Kingdom through the Sykes-Picot Agreement and a League of Nations mandate. During the mandatory period, the British made conflicting promises to both populations in the forms of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and tensions between Arab and Jewish groups in the region erupted into physical violence as in the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1921 Palestine riots, the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.
The British responded to these outbreaks of violence with the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry, the Shaw Report, the Peel Commission of 1936-1937, and the White Paper of 1939. The Peel Commission proposed a failed partition plan, while the White Paper sought a one-state solution and established a quota for Jewish immigration set by the British in the short-term and by the Arab population in the long-term. Both Arab and Jewish groups directed violence against the British, as in the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, the King David Hotel bombing, and the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte, in order to expel the Mandatory government, which was held in contempt by both sides.
This violence and the heavy cost of World War II led Britain to turn the issue of Palestine over to the United Nations. In 1947, the U.N. approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but Palestinian Arab leaders, supported by the Arab League, rejected the plan, and a civil war broke out. Israel quickly gained the upper hand in this intercommunal fighting, and on May 14, 1948 declared its independence. Five Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq), then invaded Palestine, starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in an Israeli victory, with Israel capturing additional territory beyond the partition borders, but leaving Jerusalem as a divided city; the territory Israel did not capture was taken over by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan (now Jordan). The war also resulted in the 1948 Palestinian exodus, known to Palestinians as Al-Naqba.
For decades after 1948, Arab governments had refused to recognize Israel and in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded with the central tenet that Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, is the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. In turn, Israel refused to recognize the PLO as a negotiating partner.
In the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and East Jerusalem including the Old City and its holy sites, which Israel annexed and reunited with the western neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The status of the city as Israel's capital and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip created a new set of contentious issues which became one major focus of the conflict.
In 1970, the PLO was expelled from Jordan, in what was known as the Black September. Large numbers of Palestinians moved into Lebanon after the Black September, joining the thousands already there.
In 1973 a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria launched the Yom Kippur War against Israel. The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor. Eventually a cease-fire took effect that ended the war. This war paved the way for the Camp David Accords in 1978, which set a precedent for future peace negotiations.
Tensions between Israel and the PLO led Israel to invade Lebanon in the 1982 Lebanon War,[14] forcing the PLO to withdraw again, this time to Tunisia. During the war, Israeli allies Phalangists committed the Sabra and Shatila massacre, between 700 and 3500 unarmed Palestinians were killed by the Phalange while the Israeli troops surrounded the camps with tanks and checkpoints, monitoring entrances and exits. Further Israeli investigation found that Ariel Sharon was indirectly responsible for failing to prevent the massacre, leading to his resignation as Israel's Defense Minister.
In 1987, the First Intifada broke out, the Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories. The uprising spread in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Intifada was renowned by its stone-throwing demonstrations by youth against the heavily-armed Israeli Defense Forces. [15] Over the course of the First Intifada , a total 1,551 Palestinians and 422 Israelis were killed. [16] During the intifada, in 1987, Ahmed Yassin co-founded Hamas with Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Hamas has been involved in what it calls "armed resistance" against Israel since then.
The Oslo Peace Process, which began in 1993, was a key turning point in the conflict, where Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) negotiated, unsuccessfully, to come to a mutual agreement. During the Oslo process, the PLO was permitted to establish the autonomous Palestinian Authority and associated governing institutions, to run Palestinian affairs in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with the understanding that it would uphold recognition of and mutual co-existence with Israel. However there was continual contention over whether actual events and conditions proved that there was greater acceptance of Israel's existence by Palestinian leaders [17] or a commitment by Israel to stop settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[18]
In 2000, following the failure of the peace process, the Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada, broke out. As of 2008, this Intifada has not yet officially ended.
In 2003, Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon announced a controversial disengagement plan.[19] Israel was to remove all of its civilian and military presence in the Gaza Strip, (namely 21 Jewish settlements there, and four in the West Bank), but continue to supervise and guard the external envelope on land excepting a border crossing with Egypt, which is jointly run by the Palestinian National Authority in conjunction with the European Union. Israel also maintained exclusive control in the air space of Gaza. The Israeli government argued that "as a result, there will be no basis for the claim that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory,"[20] while others argued that the only effect would be that Israel "would be permitted to complete the wall (that is, the Israeli West Bank Barrier) and to maintain the situation in the West Bank as is."[21]. The disengagement plan was implemented in 2005.
Hamas's victory in the 2006 elections for Palestinian Legislative Council, and Ismail Haniyeh’s ascension to the post of Prime Minister further complicated the peace process. Hamas openly states that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist, although they have expressed openness to a long-term hudna or truce.[22] The victory also sparked the Fatah-Hamas conflict which eventually led to the Hamas taking control of Gaza. Since Hamas took over Gaza, they have been engaged in a serious conflict with Israel.

Peace proposals
In 1993, Israeli officials led by Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leaders from the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat strove to find a peaceful solution through what became known as the Oslo peace process. A crucial milestone in this process was Yasser Arafat's letter of recognition of Israel's right to exist. In 1993, the Oslo Accords were finalized as a framework for future Israeli-Palestinian relations. The crux of the Oslo agreement was that Israel would gradually cede control of the Palestinian territories over to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. The Oslo process was delicate and progressed in fits and starts, the process took a turning point at the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and finally came to a close when Arafat and Ehud Barak failed to reach agreement. Robert Malley, special assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, has confirmed that Barak made no formal written offer to Arafat.[23][24] Consequently, there are different accounts of the proposals considered.[25][26][27] However, the main obstacle to agreement appears to have been the status of Jerusalem.

Camp David 2000 Summit
In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory—an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.
President Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that President Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure. Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit. In the months following the summit, Clinton appointed former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell to lead a fact-finding committee that later published the Mitchell Report. Later at the Taba Summit (at Taba) in January 2001, the Israeli negotiation team presented a new map. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation. However, Prime Minister Ehud Barak did not conduct further negotiations at that time; the talks ended without an agreement and the following month the right-wing Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon was elected as Israeli prime minister in February 2001.

Road Map for Peace


One peace proposal, presented by the Quartet of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States on September 17, 2002, was the Road map for peace. This plan did not attempt to resolve difficult questions such as the fate of Jerusalem or Israeli settlements, but left that to be negotiated in later phases of the process. Israel did not accept the proposal as written, but called out 14 "reservations" or changes before they would accept it,[29] which were unacceptable to the current Palestinian government. The proposal never made it beyond the first phase, which called for a halt to Israeli settlement construction and a halt to Israeli and Palestinian violence, none of which was achieved.
Negotiations based on the "Road Map" resumed with the Annapolis Conference in late 2007 and are underway as of early 2008.

Arab Peace Initiative
The Arab Peace Initiative (Arabic: مبادرة السلام العربية) is a peace initiative first proposed by Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, then crown prince, in the Beirut Summit. The peace initiative is a proposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.
The initiative was initially published on 28 March 2002 at the Beirut Summit, and agreed on again in 2007 in the Riyadh Summit. The peace initiative achieved the unanimous consent of all members of the Arab League, including both the Hamas and Fatah Palestinian factions.
Considered a progressive proposal that would end the Arab-Israeli conflict, unlike the Road Map for Peace it spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the Occupied Territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.
Although the proposal was rejected outright by Israel when it was first proposed in 2002, the Arab League continues to raise it as a possible solution, most recently in 2007, and recent meetings between the Arab League and Israel have been held.[30] According to Haaretz, Arab leaders, have threatened on February 2008 to withdraw their proposal unless Israel explicitly expresses an acceptance of the initiative.[31]
Core issues
A variety of concerns have emerged as key issues in seeking a negotiated settlement between the two sides. Since the Oslo Accords, finalized in 1993, the government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) have been officially committed to an eventual two-state solution. There are six core or 'final status' issues which need to be resolved.
Jerusalem
The borders of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue, with each side asserting claims over this city. The three largest Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—include Jerusalem as an important setting for their religious and historical narratives.[32] Israel asserts that the city should not be divided, and should remain unified within Israel's political control. Palestinians claim at least the parts of the city which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. As of 2005, there are more than 719,000 people living in Jerusalem; 465,000 are Jews (mostly living in West Jerusalem) and 232,000 are Muslim (mostly living in East Jerusalem).[33]
The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is centered in the "new city" of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel's founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War they assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel issued a new law stating, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."[34]
At the Camp David and Taba Summits in 2000–2001, the United States proposed a plan in which the Arab parts of Jerusalem would be given to the proposed Palestinian state while the Jewish parts of Jerusalem were retained by Israel. All archaeological work under the Temple Mount would be jointly controlled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Both sides accepted the proposal in principle, but the summits ultimately failed.[35]
Israel has grave concerns regarding the welfare of Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall or other Jewish holy places and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated.[35] In 2000, a Palestinian mob took over Joseph's Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims, looted and burned the building, and turned it into a mosque.[36] There are unauthorized Palestinian excavations for construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which could threaten the stability of the Western Wall. Israel, on the other hand, has seldom blocked access to holy places sacred to other religions, and never permanently. Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, resulting in almost no serious incidents for the last twenty years. Moreover, Israel has given almost complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.[35]
In addition, Israel expresses concern over the security of its residents if neighborhoods of Jerusalem are placed under Palestinian control. Jerusalem has been a prime target for terrorism since 1967. Many Jewish neighborhoods have been fired upon from Arab areas. The proximity of the Arab areas, if these regions were to fall in the boundaries of a Palestinian state, would be so close as to threaten the safety of Jewish residents. Nadav Shragai states this idea in his study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "An Israeli security body that was tasked in March 2000 with examining the possibility of transferring three Arab villages just outside of Jerusalem - Abu Dis, Al Azaria, and a-Ram - to Palestinian security control, assessed at the time that: 'Terrorists will be able to exploit the short distances, sometimes involving no more than crossing a street, to cause damage to people or property. A terrorist will be able to stand on the other side of the road, shoot at an Israeli or throw a bomb, and it may be impossible to do anything about it. The road will constitute the border.' If that is the case for neighborhoods outside of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, how much more so for Arab neighborhoods within those boundaries.[37]
Palestinians have grave concerns regarding the welfare of Christian and Muslim holy places under Israeli control.[38] They point to the several attacks on the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al Aqsa) since 1967, including a serious fire in 1969, which destroyed the south wing, and the discovery, in 1981, of ancient tunnels under the structure of the mosque which some archaeologists believe have weakened the building structures on the Al Aqsa Mosque.
Some Palestinian advocates have made statements alleging that the tunnels were re-opened with the intent of causing the mosque's collapse. [39] Israel considers these statements to be totally baseless and unfounded, and to be deliberately intended to incite aggression and public disorder, [40] and stated this in a 1996 speech at the UN. [41] The Israeli government claims it treats the Muslim and Christian holy sites with utmost respect.
Palestinian refugees
The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949[42] Because the UN definition of Palestinian refugees includes all the descendants of refugees, the number of refugees now stands at around four million.[43] Most of these people were born outside of Israel, nevertheless they claim Right of Return to Israel. Palestinian negotiators, most notably Yasser Arafat,[44] have so far insisted that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, including those within the 1949 Armistice lines, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as evidence.
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 declared that it proposed the compromise of a "just resolution" of the refugee problem.[45] Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds:[46][47][48]
• Several authors included in the broader New Historians assert that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun.[49]
• The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put.[50]
• The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed by some as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.[51][52][53][54]
• The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.[55][56]
Many Israelis are open to compromise on the issue, by means such as the monetary reparations and family reunification initiatives offered by Ehud Barak at the Camp David 2000 summit[citation needed]. Others, however, are opposed. The most common arguments given for this opposition are:
• The Israeli government asserts that the Arab refugee problem is largely due to the refusal of all Arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who reside within those countries' borders. This has produced much of the poverty and economic problems of the refugees, according to MFA documents. There were other much larger refugee problems after World War II which were eventually solved, while this one persisted.[clarification needed][57]
• The Palestinian refugee issue is handled by a separate authority than other refugees- by UNRWA and not the UNHCR. Most of the people recognizing themselves as Palestinian refugees would have otherwise been assimilated into their country of current residency, and would not maintain their refugee state if not for the separate entities.
• Concerning the origin of the Palestinian refugees, the official version of the Israeli government is that during the 1948 War the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear.[58] The Palestinian narrative is that refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and by the Israeli army, following a plan established even before the war.[59] Historians still debate the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
• Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[60]
• Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, Israel insists that their return into the current state of Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.[61][62]
Israeli settlements
In the years following the Six-Day War, and especially in the 1990s during the peace process, Israel re-established communities destroyed in 1929 and 1948[citations needed] as well as established numerous new settlements in the West Bank.[citation needed] These settlements are now home to about 350,000 people.[citation needed] Most of the settlements are in the western parts of the West Bank, while others are deep into Palestinian territory, overlooking Palestinian cities. These settlements have been the site of much intercommunal conflict.[citations needed]
The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip have been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, by the international media;[63][64] as well as the international political community (including the US[65], the UK[66], and the EU[67]). These actors have also called the settlements illegal under international law,[68] furthermore, the International Court of Justice[69] as well as international and Israeli human rights organizations[70] consider the settlements illegal. However Israel disputes this;[71] several scholars and commentators disagree, citing recent historical trends to back up their argument, [72][73][74] it has not changed the view of the international community and human rights organizations.
As of 2006, 267,163 Israelis lived within the West Bank and East Jerusalem.[75] The establishment and expansion of these settlements in the West Bank and (at the time) the Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the UN Security Council in several resolutions. The European Union[76] and the General Assembly of the United Nations[77] consider the settlements to be illegal. Proponents of the settlements justify their legality using arguments based upon Article 2 and 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 242.[78] On a practical level, some objections voiced by Palestinians are that settlements divert resources needed by Palestinian towns, such as arable land, water, and other resources; and, that settlements reduce Palestinians' ability to travel freely via local roads, owing to security considerations.
In 2005, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, a proposal put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was enacted. All Jewish residents in the Gaza strip were evacuated, and all residential buildings were demolished.[79]
Various mediators and various proposed agreements have shown some degree of openness to Israel retaining some fraction of the settlements which currently exist in the West Bank; this openness is based on a variety of considerations, such as, the desire to find real compromise between Israeli and Palestinian territorial claims, [80] [81] Israel's position that it needs to retain some West Bank land and settlements as a buffer in case of future aggression, [82] and Israel's position that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.[83] [84] [85]
President George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the 1949 armistice lines, due to "new realities on the ground. [86] One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country. [87]
Security
Without the West Bank, Israel would be only nine miles across at its narrowest point, close to its greatest population center.[88] Many fear that this would leave it vulnerable to any future attacks by an Arab alliance. Moreover, such an army would be fighting from the higher ground of the West Bank,[89] and would find its invasion made easier, since it would not have to cross the Jordan River.[citation needed]
The threat of Qassam rockets fired from the Palestinian Territories into Israel is also of great concern. In 2006—the year following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip—the Israeli government recorded 1,726 such launches, more than four times the total rockets fired in 2005.[90] Many Israelis see this as evidence that greater Palestinian autonomy necessarily comes at the expense of Israel's ability to defend itself against threats from the Palestinian territories.[91]
Contrarily, many believe that Israeli concessions will result in reduced friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and that this will in turn bring about a reduction of violence.[91] This claim has been disputed by experts on counterterrorism. David Kilcullen has argued that removing Israel from the West Bank or complying with all Palestinian demands would not remove Palestinian insurgency. Instead Palestinian terrorists would seek new targets in Israel proper.[92]
International status
In the past Israel has demanded control over border crossings between the Palestinian territories and Jordan and Egypt, and the right to set the import and export controls, asserting that Israel and the Palestinian territories are a single economic space.
Palestinians insist on contiguous territory which will in turn rupture the existing territorial contiguity of Israel. In the interim agreements reached as part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has received control over cities (Area A) while the surrounding countryside has been placed under Israeli security and Palestinian civil administration (Area B) or complete Israeli control (Area C). Israel has built additional highways to allow Israelis to traverse the area without entering Palestinian cities. The initial areas under Palestinian Authority control are diverse and non-contiguous [6]. The areas have changed over time because of subsequent negotiations, including Oslo II, Wye River and Sharm el-Sheik. According to Palestinians, the separated areas make it impossible to create a viable nation and fails to address Palestinian security needs; Israel has expressed no agreement to withdrawal from some Areas B, resulting in no reduction in the division of the Palestinian areas, and the institution of a safe pass system, without Israeli checkpoints, between these parts. Because of increased Palestinian violence to occupation this plan is in abeyance. The number of checkpoints has increased; resulting in more suicide bombings since the early summer of 2003. Neither side has publicized a proposal for a final map. (Some maps have been leaked. These, purporting to show Israeli proposals, are reputed to come from the Israelis [7] and the Palestinians[8]).
Resource distribution
Palestinians note, as one of their most central concerns, that their society must be given land and resources with enough contiguity to give them a viable society, and that they must therefore not be forced to give up too many resources to Israel, as this may cause economic collapse.
In the Middle East, water is a resource of great political concern. Since Israel receives much of its water from two large aquifers which are sprawled across the Green Line, the use of this water has been contentious in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since some of the wells used to draw this water lie within the Palestinian Authority areas, there are many who question the legality of using the water for Israeli needs.[93][94][95]
But critics of this argument point out that even though Israel withdraws some water from these areas, it also supplies the West Bank with approximately 40 MCM annually, contributing to 77% of Palestinians' water supply in the West Bank, which is to be shared for a population of about 2.3 million.[96]
While Israel's consumption of this water has decreased since it began its occupation of the West Bank, it still consumes the majority of it: in the 1950s, Israel consumed 95% of the water output of the Western Aquifer, and 82% of that produced by the Northeastern Aquifer. Although this water was drawn entirely on Israel's own side of the pre-1967 border, the sources of the water are nevertheless from the shared groundwater basins located under both West Bank and Israel.[97] By 1999, these numbers had declined to 82% and 80%, respectively.[93][94][95]
Finally, Israel cites the Oslo II Accord. In this treaty, both sides agreed to maintain "existing quantities of utilization from the resources." In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established unequivocally the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel obligated itself in this agreement to provide water to supplement Palestinian production, and further agreed to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians counter that the Oslo II agreement was intended to be a temporary resolution, and that it was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later. Indeed its name is "The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement."[98]
This agreement also established the right of the Palestinian Authority to explore and drill for natural gas, fuel and petroleum within its territory and territorial waters. It also delineated the major terms of conduct regarding regulations on the parties' facilities.[98]
Issues
A variety of concerns have become prominent issues between the two sides in regards to ongoing day-to-day interactions, and actions by either side towards the other.
Status of the occupied territories
Occupied Palestinian Territories is the term used by the UN to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip—territories which Israel conquered from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War[99] The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[83][84] The area is still referred to as Judea and Samaria by some Israeli groups, based on the historical regional names from ancient times.
In 1980, Israel outright annexed East Jerusalem.[100] The United Nations rejected this annexation on August 20 of that year.[101] Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and the United Nations has demanded the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" and that Israeli forces withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" - the meaning and intent of the latter phrase is disputed. See United Nations Security Council Resolution 242#Semantic dispute.
It has been the position of Israel that the most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip must eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State. However, the precise borders of this state are in question. In 2000, for example, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian State composed of the entire Gaza Strip and 92% of the West Bank. Due to security restrictions, and Barak's opposition to a broad right of return, Arafat refused this proposal.[102]
Some Palestinians claim they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Israel says it is justified in not ceding all this land, due to security concerns, and also because the lack of any valid diplomatic agreement at the time means that ownership and boundaries of this land is open for discussion.[44] Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any moves to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and feels the purpose of negotiations is to define what the final borders will be.
Other Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, insist that Palestinians must control not only the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, but also all of Israel proper. For this reason, Hamas views the peace process "as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".[103]
Mutual recognition
The Oslo peace process was based upon Israel ceding authority to the Palestinians to run their own political and economic affairs. In return, it was agreed that Palestinians would promote peaceful co-existence, renounce violence and promote recognition of Israel among their own people.[104] Despite Yasser Arafat's official renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel, some Palestinian groups continue to practice and advocate violence against civilians and do not recognize Israel as a legitimate political entity.[105] Simultaneously, at the time of Hamas's victory in the 2006 elections, polls indicated that 66% of Palestinians supported mutual recognition and a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.[citation needed]
Palestinians state that their ability to spread acceptance of Israel was greatly hampered by Israeli restrictions on Palestinian political freedoms, economic freedoms, civil liberties, and quality of life. Many feel that their own opposition to Israel was justified by Israel's apparent stifling of any genuine Palestinian political and economic development.[106]
It is widely felt among Israelis that Palestinians did not in fact promote acceptance of Israel's right to exist. [107] [108] One of Israel's major reservations in regards to granting Palestinian sovereignty is its concern that there is not genuine public support by Palestinians for co-existence and elimination of terrorism and incitement. [109] [107] [108]Some Palestinian groups, notably Fatah, the political party founded by PLO leaders, claim they are willing to foster co-existence if Palestinians are steadily given more political rights and autonomy. In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it remains the majority party. While Hamas has openly stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist, and its charter states this, [105] [110] there is evidence that its position may have softened recently. [111][112] However, Israel contends that Hamas has refused to recognize Israel in any valid way, and that it supported recent rocket attacks on Israel. [113] [114]
Israel cites past concessions, such as Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, which did not lead to a reduction of attacks and rocket fire against Israel, as an example of the Palestinian people not accepting Israel as a state. Palestinian groups and Israeli Human Rights organizations (namely B'Tselem) have pointed out that while the military occupation in Gaza was ended, the Israeli government still retained control of Gaza's airspace, territorial water, and borders, legally making it still under Israeli control. Practically, they also point out that mainly thanks to these restrictions, the Palestinian quality of life in the Gaza Strip has not improved since the Israeli withdrawal. Furthermore, given that the Israeli army has run incursions into the Gaza Strip on various occasions, closed off its borders, and placed an embargo on the region, the Gazan economy has since gone into free fall. This has led and continues to result in warnings of the Palestinian population becoming more radicalized unless conditions improve.
Many significant Palestinian terrorist groups refuse to recognize Israel's existence, based on their belief that Israel has repeatedly taken Palestinian resources and violated their perceived rights. Based on this, they seek to destroy Israel at some point in the future. In response, some Israeli groups and individuals oppose any territorial or political concessions to Palestinians.
Government
The Palestinian Authority is considered corrupt by a wide variety of sources, including some Palestinians.[115][116][117] Some Israelis argue that it provides tacit support for extremists via its relationship with Hamas and other Islamic terrorist movements, and that therefore it is unsuitable for governing any putative Palestinian state or (especially according to the right wing of Israeli politics), even negotiating about the character of such a state.[44] Because of that, a number of organizations, including the previously ruling Likud party, declared they would not accept a Palestinian state based on the current PA. (Likud's former leader Ariel Sharon, publicly declared that he rejected this position as too radical).[citation needed]
A PA Cabinet minister, Saeb Erekat, declared this indicates that Israel is seeking to maintain its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.[118] Israel has not recognised a Palestinian state, and has carried out extrajudicial killings of suspects within the West Bank and Gaza whom it claims have planned and led terrorist attacks within Israel.[citation needed] Some international observers have recommended that negotiations proceed anyway, claiming that internal Palestinian reform can be undertaken if negotiations make progress.[citation needed]

Societal attitudes
Societal attitudes in both Israel and Palestine are a source of concern to those promoting dispute resolution. Some Israelis are concerned that key Palestinian leaders have promoted incitement against and overall non-acceptance of Israel, including promotion of violence against Israel.[107] [108] Some Palestinians are concerned that key Israeli leaders have refused to accept the reality of the Palestinian people[119] and have been defended violence against Palestinians.[120]
Gaza blockade
The Israeli Government's cut in the flow of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip has also been called collective punishment of the civilian population, which would be a violation of Israel’s obligations under the laws of war. Starting February 7, 2008, the Israeli Government reduced the electricity it sells directly to Gaza. This follows the ruling of Israel’s High Court of Justice’s decision, which held, with respect to the amount of industrial fuel supplied to Gaza, that, “The clarification that we made indicates that the supply of industrial diesel fuel to the Gaza Strip in the winter months of last year was comparable to the amount that the Respondents now undertake to allow into the Gaza Strip. This fact also indicates that the amount is reasonable and sufficient to meet the vital humanitarian needs in the Gaza Strip.” The Jerusalem Post argued that Palestinians had killed two Israelis in the process of delivering fuel to the Nahal Oz fuel depot, which makes the arguments against the blockade lack credibility.[121]
With regard to Israel’s plan, the Court stated that, “calls for a reduction of five percent of the power supply in three of the ten power lines that supply electricity from Israel to the Gaza Strip, to a level of 13.5 megawatts in two of the lines and 12.5 megawatts in the third line, we [the Court] were convinced that this reduction does not breach the humanitarian obligations imposed on the State of Israel in the framework of the armed conflict being waged between it and the Hamas organization that controls the Gaza Strip. Our conclusion is based, in part, on the affidavit of the Respondents indicating that the relevant Palestinian officials stated that they can reduce the load in the event limitations are placed on the power lines, and that they had used this capability in the past."
In earlier times, during the British Mandate, the term "collective punishment" was freely used by the British government to refer to measures they took against Arabs when unknown Arabs attacked Jews, or against Jews when unknown Jews attacked Arabs during the British mandate over Palestine after 1919. In that era, it meant closure of shops, restriction of movement, and taxes or fines levied on towns as punishment. Supporters of Israel have argued that Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians constitutes collective punishment of Palestinians for the actions of their government.
Airspace
The West Bank and Israel form a strip only up to 80 kilometers wide.[citation needed] Israel[vague] has insisted on complete Israeli control of the airspace above the West Bank and Gaza[citation needed] as well as that above Israel itself.[citation needed] A Palestinian compromise of joint control over the combined airspace has been rejected by Israel.[citation needed]
Palestinian army
The Israeli Cabinet issued a statement[122] expressing that it does not wish the Palestinians to build up an army capable of offensive operations, considering that the only party against which such an army could be turned in the near future is Israel itself. However, Israel has already allowed for the creation of a Palestinian police that can not only conduct police operations, but also carry out limited-scale warfare. Palestinians[vague] have argued that the IDF, a large and modern armed force, poses a direct and pressing threat to the sovereignty of any future Palestinian state, making a defensive force for a Palestinian state a matter of necessity. To this, Israelis claim that signing a treaty while building an army is a show of bad intentions.
Current status
The Oslo peace process obligated both sides to work towards a two-state solution, as noted above. However, during the process itself, there were numerous acts of violence by both sides. Israelis claimed they were acting only in response to Palestinian acts of terrorism. Palestinians claimed they were only carrying out legitimate resistance, against numerous violations by Israel of Palestinian rights, and political sovereignty.[citation needed]
In addition, during this process, both sides expressed dissatisfaction and grievances with the other side. The main Israeli allegation was that Palestinians were actively inciting and funding terrorism against Israel. The main Palestinian complaint was that Israel was repeatedly violating Palestinian rights, which made it pointless to attempt to persuade ordinary Palestinians to accept Israel.[citation needed]
In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, prompting the United States and many European countries to cut off all funds to the Palestinian Authority.[123] The US cited three conditions that the Palestinian government would need to satisfy for a resumption of aid: an end to violence, recognition of Israel, and adherence to the Road Map for Peace. Palestinian critics stated that the US and Israel themselves complied with none of these conditions, and that Israel's support of the Road Map was accompanied by 14 reservations which, they say, drain it of its substance. Furthermore, they assert that Israeli violence against Palestinians continues without discussion. Israel stated that its 2007 Gaza military operations were in response to Hamas's frequent rocket attacks from Gaza into Sderot, and on other Israeli cities.[citation needed]
In early 2007, Hamas and Fatah met in Saudi Arabia and reached agreement to unite their respective parties. In March 2007, Fatah and Hamas took office under a new unity coalition government. There remained much debate as to whether the PNA was now a credible negotiating authority, and whether sanctions should be lifted. When the Fatah-Hamas coalition collapsed and armed conflict ensued, the debate changed to whether the newly separated Fatah was a credible negotiating partner.[citation needed]
In June 2007, Hamas militarily defeated Fatah in the Gaza Strip in response to attacks. Critics said Fatah had attempted an overthrow and possible coup, funded and assisted by the United States, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, engineered by US National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams, led by Mohammed Dalan.[citation needed] Various forces affiliated with Fatah engaged in combat with Hamas, in numerous gun battles. Most Fatah leaders escaped to Egypt and the West Bank, while some were captured and killed. Fatah remained in control of the West Bank, and President Abbas formed a new governing coalition, which some critics of Fatah said subverts the Palestinian Constitution and excludes the majority government of Hamas.
In line with their policies, Israel, the United States, and several allied governments have censured Hamas for its non-recognition of Israel. They have also assisted President Abbas and Fatah, who hold stances in favor of recognition of Israel. It is the position of the UN, the International Criminal Court, and a vast majority of the international community that Israel and the Palestinians should come to a peaceful resolution based on international laws, UN Resolutions, reciprocal recognition of self-determination and human rights.
In May 2008, Tony Blair announced a new plan for peace and for Palestinian rights, based heavily on the ideas of the Peace Valley plan. [124]
After years of Qassam rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilian areas, in December 2008, the Israeli Defense Forces responded with Operation Cast Lead, aimed at Hamas militants, strongholds, rocket launch sites and ammunition depots throughout Gaza, killing several hundred Palestinians, the vast majority of whom Hamas militants, as well as injuring "650 people ... according to the Palestinian medical sources."[125]. However it is fiercely argued that the recent raid by Israel on November 4th 2008, killing 6 Hamas militants, was one of the main reasons for the termination of the 4-month ceasefire and the spike in rocket attacks.[126] While Israel threatened for months that it would not tolerate the continued violence directed at its citizens,[127] Hamas did not cease to barrage Israeli towns, nor did it "take any extraordinary precautions, such as evacuating its security headquarters and equipping hospitals and the civil defense forces."[128] Various world leaders, including some of Arab nations, blamed Hamas for this round of violence.[129][130] Israel has been criticized for the severity of its attacks, while the IDF reports that collateral damage is unavoidable as Hamas militants use densely populated areas, hospitals and mosques as ammunition depots and launching pads.[131][132][133] As of January 3rd 2009, the UN estimates 25% of the 400 Palestinians killed by Israel were civilians.[134]
Although Israel has been considering a truce and peace negotiation, both the United States and Israel consider Hamas an Islamic terrorist organization and the two sides have difficulties negotiating and communicating. According to an Israeli source, Operation Cast Lead was intended to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas and to weaken its control so that the more moderate Palestinian movement Fatah can "reassert control in Gaza, clearing the way in the future for a return to serious peace negotiations."[135]
Casualties
The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for the occupied Palestinian territory (OCHoPT) was established in late 2000 by the United Nations as a response to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza caused by military incursions and closures[136] (See also: Second Intifada). The office monitors the conflict and presents figures relating to both internal-violence and direct conflict clashes.
Casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the OCHAoPt[137]
(numbers in brackets represent casualties under the age of 18)
Year Deaths Injuries
Palestinians
Israelis
Palestinians
Israelis

2005 216 (52) 48 (6) 1260 (129) 484 (4)
2006 678 (127) 25 (2) 3194 (470) 377 (7)
2007 396 (43) 13 (0) 1843 (265) 322 (3)
2008
Total 1290 (222) 86 (8) 6297 (864) 1183 (14)
All numbers refer to casualties of direct conflict between Israelis and Palestinians including in IDF military operations, artillery shelling, search and arrest campaigns, Barrier demonstrations, targeted killings, settler violence etc. The figures do not include events indirectly related to the conflict such as casualties from unexploded ordnance, etc., or events when the circumstances remain unclear or are in dispute. The figures include all reported casualties of all ages and both genders.[137]
B'Tselem, an Israeli non-governmental organization, also maintains comprehensive statistics on the conflict for both the First Intifada and the Second Intifada.
Casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from B'Tselem for the period from 09.12.1987 to 29.9.2000 (First Intifada)[138]
(numbers in brackets represent casualties under the age of 18)
Year Deaths
Palestinians
Israelis

Dec 9-31 1987 22 (5) 0 (0)
1988 310 (50) 12 (3)
1989 305 (83) 31 (1)
1990 145 (25) 22 (0)
1991 104 (27) 19 (0)
1992 138 (23) 34 (1)
1993-13.9.93 138 (37) 42 (0)
14.9.93-31.12.93 42 (4) 19 (0)
1994 152 (24) 74 (2)
1995 45 (5) 46 (0)
1996 74 (11) 75 (8)
1997 21 (5) 29 (3)
1998 28 (3) 12 (0)
1999 9 (0) 4 (0)
2000 until 28.9 16 (2) 2 (0)
Total 1549 (304) 421 (18)
Casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from B'Tselem for the period as of 29.9.2000 (Second Intifada)[139]
(numbers in brackets represent casualties under the age of 18)
Year Deaths
Palestinians
Israelis

2000 (as of 29.09.2000) 279 (83) 41 (0)
2001 469 (82) 191 (36)
2002 1032 (157) 421 (47)
2003 588 (119) 185 (21)
2004 828 (179) 108 (8)
Total 3196 (620) 946 (112)
Figures include both Israeli civilians and security forces and casualties in both the Occupied Territories and Israel.
Casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt

Source Cited by Deaths
Palestinians
Israelis

Arnon-Ohana, 1982, 140 Morris, Righteous Victims p 159. 4,500 (killed by other Arabs)
Various Morris, Righteous Victims p 159. 3,000 to 6,000 several hundred