It has always been a robust discussion at https://seifertforgovernor.com, when it comes to explaining the details about the Zionism or the Arab cause. Several authors have always taken the wide range of history to give their different stances using the historical standpoints. This explains why the author of The Iron Wall, Shlaim Avi resonates with the fact that the Isreali- Arab conflict has always been a source of interest which explains the reason for acrimonious relations between the two protagonists. He gives an assertion that, Israeli is deemed as the lesser in conflict sparking.

However, Arab has been known to be the main cause and source of threat for Israeli which has made Israel. Shlaim goes further to state that the Zionists are the ones who lured the Arab Hashemite regime to collude with them and spark the dreaded conflict and war between the two nations. However, this is not certain since, he has not considered the time immemorial history of the two nations. Conflicts were no triggered by the Zionists. The Arabs have always been known to be the leaders of their own interests. The Zionists have also been stated to have good relations with the Israelites. This explains why in the early historical periods, there have been robust misunderstandings between the early Zionists and the early Arabs. Therefore, the collusion would only be possible if it was between the Israelites and the Zionists and not the Arabs.

Shlaim unpacks the different perceptions of the Jewish agitator, Vladimir Jabonski which explains that the sole way to trigger an understanding between the two nations would be by building Iron Wall. Shlaim applauds this stance by stating that the Iron wall would help in eschewing any settlement attempts by either of the protagonists into the enemy land. This is true to some great extent. This is because, in order to avoid this increasing conflict, the two groups had to eschew any possibility that they can meet on a neutral ground.  He, however, gives a point that, negotiations would bear no fruit in restructuring the relationship between the two groups. This not so certain because, it has been stated that, there have never between negotiation attempts between the two nations (Shlaim, 14).

Therefore, signing of treaties after negotiations would be handy in fostering an understanding between the warring nations. Building the Iron Wall would therefore mean that the nation’s would only be brought to terms only under military means since it would be a warzone if either tried to enter the demarcation. Shlaim gives an argument that it is due to the Iron wall that Israel failed to heed to such peace advocates like Ben Gurion who was deemed to be the hope of restoring peace and understanding between the two countries. To a great extent this is ultimately true.

The iron wall was not only a physical symbol but also an assurance that there would be no glimmer of hope that the two contenders would ever share a table. Ant attempts would otherwise mean a trespass to the enemy’s territory. This would not lead to any positive e fruition to the any settlement attempts. The fact that, Shlaim is only capable of claiming there is no love lost between the two nations is not encouraging. It is seen that some parts of these nations have regained an understanding since 1958. For example there were Israeli-Jordanian peace talks which have been a green light for new cooperation (Shlaim, 3). This means that, there is a possibility of future attempts to ignore the Iron wall and build their interactions on completely different contexts.