So people who suck at life aim illogical hatred at a group that is generally successful. Hmm, imagine that.
What perpetuates the conflict, aside from the cliche comments about this being a millenia-old argument, is that the current situation favours the people in power. Their current positions mean that they are at least paid attention to, if not listened to and respected. They have power and influence. Resolving the conflict means that they have to go home and be just another citizen. Prolonging the conflict means they get to keep themselves in business. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip border on Muslim countries. Just throwing that out there. There was an excellent play written a while ago by a Lebanese-Canadian author named Wajdi Mouawad which dealt with this very question. This is a (poorly translated) quote from him a few years after he wrote the play, in 2006:
Religious fanaticism is not the cause of the issues, it's a consequence of the cause in present day. These people (in the entire Mesopotamia region) have never, ever had a chance to rule themselves. Before the current powers (i.e. Russia and the US) were telling them how to run their shit, it was divided up between Britain and France into their spheres of influence. Before that, it was the Ottoman Empire. Before that, the Mongols. Before that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Before that, the Assyrians. You get the picture. There hasn't been an opportunity to self-govern. Based on that, you have cultural outrage and frustration manifesting itself in religious zealotry. There's really 2 solutions here. Everyone step back for 100 years and let the area hash out it's own violence issues with itself. Eventually lines will be drawn when forces learn they can't push past each other. It will settle and the peace process will happen, but very gradually. The result will be a 4 state solution (Israel, Kurdistan, a nation for Shia and one for Sunnis). Hell, that's already kind of happening anyway. Israel has it's lines drawn, Kurdistan does too. ISIS will draw the rest of them. It will be very, very violent and a lot of people will die. But eventually it will fix itself as long as external parties don't interfere. Another result of this is pan-Arabism and the development of an Arab super state. The right and the left will tell you this is a bad thing, and it might be on the short term, but in the long term, I do think it would settle things down of they got the chance. The other solution is full occupation by the west to force it on them. Aside from the obvious moral/financial/economic/geopolitical issues it would cause, it would work. I'm talking a full occupation for 50+ years and creating their 4 state solution for them. Of you think 50 year occupations are impossible, just ask Japan and Germany. I'm not advocating either of these, and both largely ignore all the moral and financial implications in the short term, but they are solutions. And for anyone who blames Israel, go look up the UN Resolution of 1947. The victors of WWII are ones that need the finger pointing.
This is a little long, but it was very eye opening. It's a talk given by the son of a famous Israeli general who eventually began to be against the treatment of the Palestinians. He was present at the very beginning of the creation of the state and fought in the 1948 war, the 1967 war, and his son, who gives the talk, was also in the Israeli army. His transformation is interesting and according to him, "painful". A lot of what he says jibes with some of my recent research, and he also gives a solution to the current conflict. This link tells the history of the conflict and was written by a group called Jews For Justice in the Middle East This link also tells the history of the conflict from a deep historical perspective and makes a very logical case that a Jewish state in the region known as Palestine has always been and that there has never been an Arab state in that region. The clip below is a very concise and easy to understand history of the conflict from, what seems to be a very neutral, factual perspective. It is noteworthy to me that term Palestine is not the name of the people of the region, but rather the region itself. Palestinians are, in fact, simply Arabs who happened to live in the region. It is also interesting that after the British gave the Palestinians the right of self-rule and freedom of speech the very first thing they said was "Stop Jewish immigration". That has been consistent from the second any mention of an Israeli state was made. I went into this research biased toward Israel and now I'm not so sure. The holocaust most definitely had a lot to do with militant Zionism and it can be understood why some would have insisted on a " Recognized Nation of Israel" but in carrying out that dream they seem to have resorted to a lot of tactics that were used against them and have become terrorists of a sort themselves.
What a striking difference from the American Holocaust Memorial Museum. It does have a section on Israel, but nothing like that. Nothing in the literature or the presentations or anything.
Six or seven years back I built a power plant in Kuwait. I couldn't drive anywhere, so they hired me a driver (or drivers), they happened to be Palestinian. This gave me an opportunity to hear a different side to the story than the story provided in the decidedly pro-Israel U.S. media. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily buy everything the Palestinians are selling but it definitely gives me pause. You are all aware that Israel was created by the British forcing the Palestinians off of their lands. Palestinians, in essence, became refugees. Many Palestinians who could, were forced to emigrate to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the region. It is very expensive in Jordan and Lebanon, so many of the guys I knew wound up in Syria. I only hope they are safe. Basically, it's important to understand that all Arabs hate Jews; they hate America next for meddling in their affairs and supporting Israel, but they also hate Palestinians. I remember my drivers getting treated like shit by the gate guards for no other reason than being unfortunate enough to be born Palestinian. FOCUS: This whole situation really isn't fair to the Palestinians. The world took up the Jewish cause at the Palestinians expense. As was said up above, it would be best if we kept out of the affairs of these countries and allowed them to hash it out. Too late for that now, the major issues are this: 1. Israel has nukes, I don't doubt that they will use them, if truly threatened 2. Couple that with the fact that if we assume that Gaza and the West Bank are liquidated and Palestinians are resettled/obliterated/whatever, it won't change the fact that Israel is bordered on all sides by Arabs who want them dead. That will never, ever change.
You mean in 1948? Or in 1920? I thought 48 was the UN declaration (re)creating Israel, with the British removing any control. And, 1920(ish) was a result of the end of WWI, that took away the area under 400-year control of the Ottoman Empire. I mean, it's not like anything the British (and French, too) did around the 1920 period, or later in 48 just created Israel out of thin air in some vacant lot. In Genesis, the story of Abraham's sons Ishmael and Isaac being at odds with one another is much older than 1920. I'm not saying the Bible or the Tanakh are history books, but when a story like that happened around 2000 BC (eventually written down around 500 BC), to say "Israel was created by the British forcing the Palestinians off their lands" ignores the thousands of years of conflict mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Knowing the root of the conflict practically goes back to the beginning of man being formed enough to claim any sort of nation status, makes it comical to think any US president, the UN, or anyone else can present a solution both sides will accept. They will still be fighting for the rest of the lives of anyone reading this board right now.
Fair enough. In the modern era (20th century forward), the British and later the UN imported Jews to the area. The Ottomans certainly didn't. So there is an area on the map that was continuously dominated by Arab and Palestinian people for centuries until the British and later the UN arrive and started bringing in the Jews, who as you note have a long history with the Arabs in the area. As you have noted, they don't get along. So, to me, it seems rather tone-deaf on the part of the British and UN to go along with this plan. It seems that they were creating a tinder box. I have no problem with the idea of Israel, my problem is that there were too many meddling outside factors involved to create it for which now, somehow, America is blamed. I'm not ignoring the centuries of conflict, I realize it happened, I'm noting that at the time the Jews weren't holding it. If they wanted Israel so bad they should have stormed the beaches of the Mediterranean and taken it back for themselves. In the end, I agree, regardless of how it formed or reformed. This will never end.
Breaking news: a park and hospital was just blown up in Gaza, children dead. Hamas said it was an Israeli air strike, Istael claims a Hamas rocket misfired. This is why you can't take sides, this finger-pointing from both teams will never stop. Ever. The OTHER side is always the villain.
Very true. I'm pro-Israel for a variety of reasons, but am more than willing to admit they are often a bit too ruthless in their retaliation attacks. That being said, Hamas and co are also a bit too ruthless in their time-honored strategy of hiding insurgents among women and children, so its kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.
It's not that I don't understand collateral damage - but I have a very hard time distinguishing between reckless endangerment of civilian lives in the guise of military targeting, and targeting civilians because you're fighting against an opponent who's so heavily funded by external forces that their conventional military aren't practical targets. Especially when the reckless endangerment of civilian lives is so often as part of an unsuccessful military agenda - how often have we all seen news articles like "200+ civilian deaths and casualties, however wicked terrorists eluded the attack"? I know nobodies perfect and shit - but if you're going to fire a rocket into a hospital, or a fucking apartment block full of civvies, you need to be pretty fucking sure that you're actually going to take out a terrorist - otherwise collateral damage looks a lot like evidence of douchery. It's not that I'm any more in favor of bombing a civilian market - I just have a hard time seeing either side as having a moral high ground.
Oppressed?? When did that last happen? I found this article interesting. Will copy and past in case the link does not work. The Age (Melbourne, Australia. August 6, 2014 ) <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/benjamin-netanyahus-aggressive-stance-tarnishes-israel-in-the-eyes-of-the-world-20140805-100cd7.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/comment/benjam ... 00cd7.html</a> Benjamin Netanyahu's aggressive stance tarnishes Israel in the eyes of the world Israel needs supporters around the world to save it from itself. The best thing that its boosters in Australia and elsewhere can do now is to abandon myopic support of the nation, its government and its dangerous prime minister. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urgently needs to be reminded that international diplomatic, political and public support for Israel is not unconditional. Every day in Gaza, every death in Gaza increases the prospect that Israel’s great fear of “de-legitimisation” by the international community will be realised. If Israel is indeed facing an existential threat, then Netanyahu bears the lion’s share of blame. For years he has held all the cards in the stand-off between Israelis and Palestinians and failed to use them for his nation’s long-term benefit. He has allowed events to deteriorate so disastrously that Israel’s Gaza adventure will inevitably diminish his nation’s international standing still further. Netanyahu has taken his nation down a path of confrontation from which it will be hard to return. He has provided Israel’s enemies with more ammunition to attack the nation than any other Prime Minister since Menachem Begin launched the misbegotten invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and trashed his reputation as a Nobel peace prize recipient. Since he took the reins in 2009, Netanyahu has fulfilled the worst fears of Israelis and friends abroad who believed in the prospect of a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians – the only path by which Israel can survive and prosper. Hand-in-hand with rejectionist politicians, an aggressive settler movement and those who believe in an expansionist Israel, Netanyahu has determinedly blocked Palestinian aspirations for nationhood – the very same aspirations that the Jewish diaspora fulfilled in 1948. Jewish settlements in occupied territories and the “security wall” are merely physical manifestations of wide-ranging policies that undermine any prospect of an equitable settlement under Netanyahu. Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have become increasingly despairing while those in the Gaza Strip have become more angry and outraged at their imprisonment. Of course there is a surge in hatred, of course there is a turning to more extreme forms of resistance. At the same time a succession of international opinion polls has revealed increasing public frustration with Israeli policies. There is declining support for the nation even in the United States. This view is not new but it is growing. It began as far back as the Lebanon misadventure when Israel’s claim to be a “plucky little state amongst a sea of enemies” first slipped. It had become an aggressor. Its complicity in the massacre of Palestinians in two refugee camps under Defence Minister, Ariel Sharon (later to become Prime Minister), merely hastened the fall from grace. Its brutal attempts to suppress the Palestinian uprising, the intifada, in 1987 accelerated the trend. It took a much more far-sighted and able man than Netanyahu to reclaim some of that lost status. Confronted yet again by a disaster in the battle for international opinion, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was eventually forced by the intifada to negotiate with “terrorist” Yasser Arafat’s PLO. Rabin brought his nation closer to peace than any other Israeli politician and might well have succeeded had he not been assassinated by a right-wing Israeli fanatic opposed to the peace process. Rabin, a military commander and hero, told me once that every war inevitably ended with opponents talking to each other. This was on the same occasion on which he kicked me out of his office for being impertinent. Now, as Israel’s international reputation takes a renewed hammering, Netanyahu needs to recognise that the other “terrorist” organisation, Hamas, also reflects legitimate Palestinian aspirations. Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas in the 1980s so it could divide and undermine Arafat’s secular PLO – an irony lost on most today. That policy rebounded badly when Hamas won democratic elections in Gaza in 2006 and unsurprisingly proceeded to impose Islamist social mores on its constituents. Its public position was aggressively anti-Israeli but, while reporting from there, it was made clear to me by Hamas leaders that under the right circumstances the public and private postures could be very different – as is always the case in international disputes. But Netanyahu and his predecessor, Ariel Sharon failed to heed the lessons that Rabin learnt in the 80s. Their policies of increasing the stranglehold on Gazans in their prison and refusing to deal in any way with their elected government, while tightening the fist of occupation on West Bank and East Jerusalem and leaving no hope for peace have led directly to the latest series of catastrophes. No one needs to condone the kidnap and murder of three young Israeli settlers – arguably the most immediate trigger for a series of events that led to the battle in Gaza – nor for Hamas rockets being fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel. But these actions are easily understood as an outgrowth of frustration, despair and anger brought about by the policies of Netanyahu’s government. Gaza itself is now isolated from the outside world by Israel and by an antagonistic new regime in Egypt. It leaves Hamas little choice but to continue the battle since the only long-term ceasefire (proposed by Egypt and the US and accepted by Israel) would spell total capitulation. Israel went on to reject a second proposal. Israel will naturally win the Battle of Gaza. Indeed, it can hardly be described as a battle at all since it is so one-sided. The death toll on both sides makes that abundantly clear. The Israeli military annual budget of some $US14 billion is supplemented by a US contribution of $US3 billion a year, plus a further $US235 million for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system Israel deploys to render Hamas’ comparatively puny rockets ineffective. Faced with such overwhelming military firepower and by such political intransigence, Hamas will continue to fight in the only way it can for as long as it can – from amidst the chaos of a devastated city in one of the most densely crowded places on earth. Some of its attacks will inevitably be launched from heavily populated areas of Gaza. Just about everywhere is densely packed while to “come out and fight in the open” – as Israel seems to be daring the resistance to do – is a ludicrous invitation to suicide in the face of such overwhelming and sophisticated force. Armies hate urban warfare where overwhelming force becomes vulnerable to guerilla tactics. In government, Hamas has proved itself incompetent and aggressive. But it is not, as Netanyahu charges, built in the mould of the extreme Islamist movement in Iraq and Syria, ISIS. It could be brought to the table. It has already agreed to a unity government with the secular PLO – a moved blocked by Israel. The great sadness is that Netanyahu does not appear to be the man for this pivotal moment. Israel needs someone with enough stature and vision to relaunch the nation on a course that Yitzhak Rabin set when he declared "We who have fought against you, the Palestinians, we say to you today, in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough!" Peter George was the ABC’s first Middle East Correspondent and reported the region over 25 years.
I've been to the West Bank, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. After spending some time in that area and talking to people on all sides, I strongly side with Israel. Without rehashing all the other points brought up so far, I'd point out that the IDF has shown an extraordinary amount of restraint in their operation and are probably doing their best to minimize civilian casualties in such a densely populated area. Think about the amount of civilians killed by the US during the Iraq invasion. It's war. Try your best to avoid it, but shit happens. Also, let's not forget the Palestinians in the West Bank are generally more moderate and it's no surprise they live fairly peacefully right now. I didn't feel unsafe at any point in the West Bank. However, Gaza is a shithole populated by a lot of extremist assholes. When I visited the area around Gaza I thought I was going to end up in a shitty homemade video getting beheaded by a guy with a rusty scimitar. It kinda drove home the point about "if the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel laid down their arms, there would be no Israel." This isn't a war between two legitimate sides. Hamas is basically on par with Al Qaeda or ISIS. The John Gotti analogy is almost spot on. Hamas won a single election based on a few strategic PR moves and then went right back to business as usual. The first thing they did was suspend all future elections and began aggressively indoctrinating the young population. Look at this video from a Gazan kids show: Is there really any peace with kids who grow up with that nonsense? Secondly, most of the moderate Arab countries support Israel at this point. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt don't want to see Hamas expand and have been quietly making sure Israel contains this shit. The Palestinians also have a really shitty track record with the other Arab countries. Whereas Israel kills them in low multiples of 100s, the Jordanians killed them in low multiples of 10,000. However, like the conflict in Syria, nobody cares when Muslims kill other Muslims in large numbers so we forget about that little episode. There's also a lot of Shite vs Sunni stuff that I'm not 100% clear on. tl ; dr: The whole area is a mess. Israel sometimes does shitty things (just like the American military), but are absolutely the good guys in this conflict. Hamas is a bunch of assholes. The Palestinians are stuck in the middle and nobody really gives a shit about them (but they don't really do themselves any favors either).
And it's even worse than that. I don't see how anyone could believe that they'd stop if Israel fell. It's easy to forget that these radical groups fight each other just as much as they do everyone else. You basically have people who decide on a path for their religion and then enforce it on everyone else. The more civilized Muslims in the region are pretty much fucked because of that. I've been paying attention to the stream of cease fires getting broken and it appears it's almost always Hamas, but more so you don't know if the group even sent out the orders. The chain command over there is totally fucked. We can go back 70 years and analyze every situation that escalated the conflict, but we should also remember that Israel made huge concessions after they won the Egypt/Syria war. Typically the victors hold on to the spoils, and Israel has done a much better job showing that they'll come to reason. All the radicalized groups? Fight Israel today, other Muslims tomorrow, and the Americans the day after that. They'll never stop so you basically just have to hope that none of these lunatics every gets ahold of nuclear weapons and turns the lights out on this planet.
how about if israel was at least nice enough to stop the ongoing theft of palestinian land/territory?
to me this goes back to the aggression point above. israel already gave up a huge controlled chunk of land in the sinai peninsula in the past. its not like the west bank has critical natural resources or a strategic port israel wants to control, but rather they feel that the more of the west bank they control, the less danger of rebel factions trying to kill israeli citizens. israel doesn't gobble up land in peace time. israeli land gains have been in response to aggression. if your neighbor kept throwing rocks through your windows and hitting your kids in the head, but would be less able to do so if you went and sat in his yard next to his rock pile, it would make sense that you would do so. i'm sympathetic to the palestinian plight, especially the peaceful, non-hamas affiliated portion of the population. but painting israel as a land hungry bully has never resonated when you truly look at motives.
over the last 50 years, israel has given back a land mass equal to three times the size of israel. they did it in good faith hoping for peace. israelis are more than willing to give up land for peace as long as it isn't tactically important (i.e. the golan heights). are there some asshole settlers? sure. however, the palestinians and arabs don't have clean hands on this one by any stretch of the imagination.
so, here's what i don't get. maybe i misunderstand your position, but those "some asshole settlers" aren't independent actors, or some fringe element of israeli society, they are there as part of an official policy of the government of israel. why are they dismissed as a few assholes, but in the same breath you say that palestinians and arabs as a whole have dirty hands?
that's the thing, they are a fringe element; one who lobbies parliament really hard to get what they want. the best comparison i would make is the tea party or religious far-right in the us. if you stopped most people on the street and asked if their opinion of that group their response would be, "they have a couple ok ideas, but overall they're a bunch of twats." the israelis generally feel the same way about the settlers (in fact, the parallels between the groups are scary accurate - both assert literal scripture stuff like young-earth creationism). however, since they make up a good chunk of the far right in israeli politics, the center shifts towards them a little, concessions are made to push through other legislation, and their bullshit ends up as "official policy." believe it or not, other countries have lobby groups and special interests that suck just as much as some of the ones in the united states.