A simple, unbiased rundown of Israel/Palestine

[Mom in High Heels]

Please don't make this political.  If you have strong beliefs either way, please be respectful, or refrain from commenting if you can't.

 

Can anyone give me a very simple and unbiased rundown of the the whole Israel/Palestine conflict that is currently going on?  I am overwhelmed when I watch or read the news, and each one had a slant to one side.  Can you please explain it?  Indy asked me, and I really can't really give him a good explanation.  I would really appreciate it.

[OneStepAtATime]

:lurk5:  I would love to read about this as well. although since this conflict is based on generations of conflict going back long before any of us were alive I don't know that this is possible.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The rundown - Israel is surrounded by enemy states on all sides, who want them anywhere from removed to eradicated. This complicates them living in their ancestral homeland and exacerbates the issue at hand with the Palestinians.

 

This wiki is pretty good, and about as unbiased as you're going to get without contrasting a piece from each side and trying to read between their lines :)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

 

Okay so I just busted up laughing. So much for no bias. But it is one side of the conflicts view. And helps to illustrate why there is so much conflict.

[linders]

The rundown - Israel is surrounded by enemy states on all sides, who want them anywhere from removed to eradicated. This complicates them living in their ancestral homeland and exacerbates the issue at hand with the 

 

When you have a 4,000-year history, it isn't so simple. There were people living in the area before Abram (Abraham) is supposed to have moved there from Ur with his extended family and minions. There were people living there when the Israelites fled Egypt and eventually came back. Did God really say, "Hey, Israelites, you have my permission to kick out the people living here"? If so, God really blew it, in my opinion.

 

4.000 years of ownership passing back and forth. The finest legal experts would be hard-pressed to sort it out.

 

And yes, I understand that after the Holocaust and centuries of persecution the Jewish people truly want a place to call "home," a place to feel secure. But what about other people who call the same place "home"?

[umsami]

Best I can tell.

 

Hamas has tunnels which they use to smuggle in goods to get by the embargo imposed upon Israel.  They usually smuggle goods from Egypt.  The Egyptians don't like this either because they lose revenue…plus the current government (El Sisi) hates the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. (Remember, they kicked out MB President (and first guy democratically elected in Egyptian history) Morsi. He's still in jail.)

 

BIgger problem for Israel is not the goods like cars, air conditioning, food, whatever.  They can use this for rockets.  ALso, they've used tunnels into Israel to attack IDF forces.  (Not a lot as far as I can tell, but one can assume this would increase.)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28430298

 

So…three Israeli teens were killed about a month ago.  Israel said Hamas did it.  Did they? THey said no.  Israel killed a bunch of people trying to get back for the deaths.  Some Jewish folks burned a Palesitnian teen boy alive in retribution.  His cousin (an American from Tampa) was beaten quite severely by Israeli police.

 

Lot of unrest over both deaths, although both families met, and promoted peace.

 

Israel decided that this was a good excuse for attacking Gaza.  Partly to get back at Hamas (historically, they do this.) Partly to go after tunnels.

 

It has escalated and escalated into a ground offensive.  Unlike the Gaza war of a few years ago, not only are Palestinians dying, but roughly 30 Israelis have died (although they are almost all IDF, and three were killed by friendly fire.)

 

Hamas doesn't want a cease fire until the blockade is lifted and they can trade freely.  Understandable, because in the past Israel not only will restrict stuff to help them rebuild, but really bizarre stuff too like potato chips, etc.

 

Israel is unlikely to ever let that happen.

 

Of course the Israelis do not like having rockets fired at them…even though Iron Dome does a good job and they have bomb shelters for their civilians.  Nobody can blame them for not wanting to be shelled.

 

Public opinion of Israel is not good in the rest of the world because of all the civilian deaths.  American vetoes any objections, so Israel doesn't care.  Numerous Nobel Prize winners have spoken out about this.  http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.606228

 

Bishop Desmond Tutu and other SOuth Africans (including Mandala) call the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians an Apartheid situation.  Israel rejects this…but hey, maybe the South Africans know something? ""I go and I visit the Holy Land and I see things that are a mirror image of the sort of things that I experienced under the apartheid," Tutu told HuffPost Live host Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani. "How can you stop me from the right to describe as I feel. You go anywhere in the world and if I see things that mirror the kind of experience that I know first-hand, I think it's cheek in a way for someone else to tell you, 'no, you are wrong in feeling as you feel about what you have seen.'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/desmond-tutu-john-kerry-apartheid_n_5236786.html

 

Israel says Hamas uses their civilians as shields…but reality is it's 1.4 million or so people, in a 25 mile by 7 mile space, imprisoned.  They have no where to go…not even the sea (blockade).

 

The UN Human Rights folks has criticized Israel for using Palestinians as human shields.  http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.530993

 

Reality is both treat the Palestinian civilians like crap.  Hamas puts their rockets and tunnels in civilian buildings because 1) they have no other options…it's the most densely populated place on earth… and 2) it makes Israel look bad when they kill civilians.   Israel could do a better job in not killing civilians.  Hams could do a better job in how they treat their own civilians.  

 

 

All goes back to the British partition plan for Israel which gave the Israelis 53%, and Palestinians 47% of the land of current Israel.  Right now, the Palestinians are begging for 22%.  They do not have a continuous state even, due to illegal settlements.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm

 

Americans like to say, well the Arabs/Palestinians should have said yes to the plan…but come on… if the UN said we have to give back half of the US to the Native Americans, would we?  We haven't been here even as long as the Palestinians have.  The Palesitians date back to Biblical times.  Historically, they were there.  Palestine is the same as Philistine.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

 

What rubs salt in the wound is that it's not just Mizrahi Jews who have Israel…it's Jews from all over the world.  How would you feel if the Native AMericans which now control land and homes that have been in your family for hundreds of years (and that you were never given retribution for…or the right of return for…as the original UN mandate said)… gave these things to aboriginal people from Australia….New Zealand…wherever.  

 

The Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust.  Perhaps if a portion of Germany had been given to create the Jewish state it would have made more sense.

 

Oh…and this is all based on the Bible…which BTW, some say gives Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates (which bothers the other Arab countries)…. and in the Bible it also says that it is given to the decedents of Abraham.  Never forget he had two sons….Ishmael and Isaac.  Father of Arabs…Father of Jews.  Perhaps God always intended them to share the land?

 

 

 

 

[*Lulu*]

Here is the problem with the "they were there first" arguement.

 

If you take the position that the land rightfully belongs to the Israelis you should also start vigorously insisting we return most of the US to the native people groups we obtained it from.

 

If you take the position that the land should be Palestinian you have to ask, after all these years should all the Jewish people just be deported? Where shall we send them?

 

We can argue all day long about the rightness or wrongness of the Zionist movement following WWII, but it does not change the fact that there are two people groups laying claim to this land and neither one is going anywhere.

 

ETA- ignore me! Umsami said it so much better!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Please don't make this political.  If you have strong beliefs either way, please be respectful, or refrain from commenting if you can't.

 

Can anyone give me a very simple and unbiased rundown of the the whole Israel/Palestine conflict that is currently going on?  I am overwhelmed when I watch or read the news, and each one had a slant to one side.  Can you please explain it?  Indy asked me, and I really can't really give him a good explanation.  I would really appreciate it.

 

The conflict is so complicated that there is no true "unbiased" view, as one can eaily slant the discussion one way or another simply choosing which events to emphasize or ignore in the timeline.

 

Although Wikipedia takes a beating at times, this page gives a decent overview of the history of the conflict, and from there you can follow up on some specific events that have shaped that region.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

[Rosie_0801]

The only way I can think of to be unbiased is to state that borders imposed by colonial powers have a long history of creating problems.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would agree that this is a fairly safe comment :)

 

I also think you can't understand the conflict without understanding colonialism, so there's another starting point.

 

 

Correct.

Cold War tensions and poltical maneuvering in the region also played a role in the conflict, and still has an impact to some degree.

A less biased opinion on my part is that the Palestinian people have been used as pawns to some degree to take pressure off of certain regimes in the Middle East, but I am willing to own that as my own beliefe.

[*Lulu*]

In fact, I don't think we should even debate it here at all. It's intractable.

 

OP, another way to 'explain' is in fiction form. I know my dd16, when younger, read ten or so novels set in Israel/Palestine, from varying perspectives, and this gave her quite a broad sympathy will all sides of the debate.

I think this is part of the difficulty.

 

It isn't like looking at a timeline of events where you can just randomly point to one moment and say on April 2, 1872 Isreal should have been given it all.

 

It is a history of enmeshment. (In truth most history is more enmeshed than linear.) It is fairly easy to explain a food chain but a food web is better in diagram form.

 

It is a situation that is simultaneously everybody's and nobody's fault.

[OneStepAtATime]

From what I am reading it appears that basically, because they cannot share the space peaceably, and both basically have a right to claim the land, there will probably never be peace?  And deaths will probably continue to occur off and on for both sides for generations to come?  Unless everyone is killed off in some catastrophic event?  And civilians on both sides lose...

 

Which is just making me incredibly sad.

[umsami]

In looking at who was there first, you should also look at the history of the aliyahs…migrations to Israel.  They were all relatively recent…started in the late 1800s.  Prior to that, other than Jerusalem, the area was very much Arab/Palestinian.  So, we're talking 50 or so years before the partition, Jews starting showing up (with just cause…such as the pogroms).  Even then, you can look at the population at the time of division…and that's why the divisions were made…they tried to keep mainly Arab areas…Arab…mainly Jewish areas..Jewish….with Jerusalem an International City.  

 

http://www.reformjudaism.org/history-jewish-immigration-israel-aliyah

 

"The first wave, known as the “First Aliyah,†took place prior to political Zionism, in the late 1800s. Most of these new immigrants came from Russia and Yemen, and set up towns including Petah Tikvah, Rishon LeZion and Zikhron Ya’akov. The Second Aliyah , prior to World War I, was almost exclusively made up of Russian Jews, following pogroms and anti-Semitism in their country. Inspired by Socialism and Jewish nationalism, this group started the first kibbutz and revived the Hebrew language…."

 

Population info http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/maps.html

[ChocolateReignRemix]

From what I am reading it appears that basically, because they cannot share the space peaceably, and both basically have a right to claim the land, there will probably never be peace?  And deaths will probably continue to occur off and on for both sides for generations to come?  Unless everyone is killed off in some catastrophic event?

 

I am not quite so pessimistic (close but not quite...) as I believe peace is possible if politicial personalities on each side who both want peace emerge, and are able to weather the firestorms of criticism and gain support as they find a workable solution.

[umsami]

From what I am reading it appears that basically, because they cannot share the space peaceably, and both basically have a right to claim the land, there will probably never be peace?  And deaths will probably continue to occur off and on for both sides for generations to come?  Unless everyone is killed off in some catastrophic event?  And civilians on both sides lose...

 

Which is just making me incredibly sad.

 

I hope not.  I take great comfort from the fact that I never thought there would be peace in Northern Ireland.  

 

I honestly believe that if they got rid of the politicians (who have their own reasons on both sides for keeping the status quo)…and had 50 Israeli Moms and 50 Palestinian Moms negotiate a peace deal, there would be peace.  I believe if they put a popular vote tomorrow saying…are you willing to go back to 1967 borders for peace….a majority of both sides would agree.  Not sure about Jerusalem…but it would be a start.

[Rosie_0801]

What could "international city" mean?

[umsami]

double post ….so I'll ramble some more.

 

One of the biggest obstacles to peace is the United States.  We always veto anything that is at all critical of Israel.  The Israelis have done a great job in getting out that anti-Israel means anti-Semitic (which isn't true.)  Jon Stewart did a great bit on this.   http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/7wnfel/we-need-to-talk-about-israel

 

 

Because of this, Israel has no motives to be more careful in dealing with Gaza.  They have no incentives really for peace.  They can keep building International settlements…which increases the likelihood should there ever be a peace deal, they'll get even more land in terms of swaps.

 

 

AIPAC has bought our Congress.  Both parties kowtow at the AIPAC convention.  It is weird how much influence a foreign country has on our government and foreign policy.  Heck, there was even a spying scandal with them that was swept under the rug.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

 

Do I think we need to protect Israel in that we ensure it survives? Yes.  But I think we need to offer some tough love in an effort for peace.   We should have not censured the Goldstone Report.  I mean, he investigated the Rwandan genocide…He's a respected Jewish South African judge, etc.  But we did.  We lose all credibility as a negotiator for peace.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

[umsami]

What could "international city" mean?

 

WHen the UN did it, it meant that nobody "owned" Jerusalem.  It was neither Palestinian nor Jewish.  

 

Ideally, one would assume that UN peacekeepers or some UN force would manage the city…people of all faiths would have access… there would be no favoritism in issuing building permits to either Jews or Arabs…or no dismantling of their homes, etc. because of their nationality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)

 

"With its many holy places and its association with three world religions, Jerusalem had international importance. The United Nations wanted to preserve this status after termination of the British Mandate and guarantee its accessibility. Therefore, the General Assembly proposed a corpus separatum, as described in Resolution 181. It was to be "under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations". The administering body would be the United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the five UN "Charter" organs. (see Resolution 181, Part III (A)))

The corpus separatum covered a rather wide area. The Arabs actually wanted to restore the former status as an open city under Arab sovereignty, but eventually supported the corpus separatum.^[3] Israel rejected the plan and supported merely a limited international regime.^[4][5] In May 1948, Israel told the Security Council that it regarded Jerusalem outside its territory,^[6] but now it claimed sovereignty over Jerusalem except the Holy Places."

[Mergath]

The rundown - Israel is surrounded by enemy states on all sides, who want them anywhere from removed to eradicated. This complicates them living in their ancestral homeland and exacerbates the issue at hand with the Palestinians.

 

If this is your unbiased rundown, I'd hate to see your description with bias.  Yeesh.

[Rosie_0801]

the UN did it, it meant that nobody "owned" Jerusalem.  It was neither Palestinian nor Jewish.  

 

Ideally, one would assume that UN peacekeepers or some UN force would manage the city…people of all faiths would have access… there would be no favoritism in issuing building permits to either Jews or Arabs…or no dismantling of their homes, etc. because of their nationality.

 

 

I wonder if it would be best to move a branch of the UN there and fill the place with bureaucrats of all nationalities, with political voting power tied to residency rather than nationality. I don't know. How do those little places like San Marino conduct politics?

 

The thought experiment stops right there because I don't know how to continue it.

[idnib]

pic deleted

[Denise in IN]

Umsami, thanks for taking the time to write all this out and include links.  It's very helpful.

[OneStepAtATime]

I hope not.  I take great comfort from the fact that I never thought there would be peace in Northern Ireland.  

 

I honestly believe that if they got rid of the politicians (who have their own reasons on both sides for keeping the status quo)…and had 50 Israeli Moms and 50 Palestinian Moms negotiate a peace deal, there would be peace.  I believe if they put a popular vote tomorrow saying…are you willing to go back to 1967 borders for peace….a majority of both sides would agree.  Not sure about Jerusalem…but it would be a start.

I was thinking this same thing.  I have family from Ireland (and England for that matter).  I remember how sad and stressed Dad would get back in the 70's/80's as we would watch the news.  And yet they managed it.

 

And I agree, chuck out the career politicians and get a bunch of moms to try and negotiate peace for the sake of their kids and grandkids...

[Mom in High Heels]

Thank you all for your comments.  I appreciate them.  I've heard several people mention it in the last few days, and it all seems to be focused on "which side are you on?"  Personally, I'm on the side of the innocent people on both sides.  We were in Israel in late 2012, and had to pass through this huge checkpoint at a fence that surrounded the whole area to get to Bethlehem.  It seemed so sad.

[Kate in Arabia]

So…three Israeli teens were killed about a month ago.  Israel said Hamas did it.  Did they? THey said no.  Israel killed a bunch of people trying to get back for the deaths.  Some Jewish folks burned a Palesitnian teen boy alive in retribution.  His cousin (an American from Tampa) was beaten quite severely by Israeli police.

 

Lot of unrest over both deaths, although both families met, and promoted peace.

 

Israel decided that this was a good excuse for attacking Gaza.  Partly to get back at Hamas (historically, they do this.) Partly to go after tunnels.

 

 

I'm going to quibble with you a bit here.  Three Israeli teens were kidnapped and murdered; Israel accused Hamas, Hamas denied it but praised the effort.  Israeli forces began searching the West Bank and arrested hundreds, including a lot of Hamas folks in the West Bank.  Netanyahu said from the beginning that his efforts were two-fold, to recover the teens and to break the unity government between Hamas and Fatah.  Five Palestinians were killed.  In response Hamas started launching rockets from Gaza.  Israel then launched an operation in Gaza to take out as much of Hamas' weaponry/tunnel infrastructure/leadership as possible. 

 

A day after the funeral for the Israeli teens, a Palestinian teen was kidnapped and murdered in Jerusalem.  There were some riots and counter-riots in East Jerusalem and other cities.  The police arrested six suspects, three have confessed.

 

This is my understanding of the situation, I could be wrong.

 

One thing this has emphasized to me is the fractured nature of the Palestinian "peoples" -- there is the West Bank, there is Gaza, and there are the Palestinians living within Israel proper; and it seems that while the areas are interconnected, they are also distinct.

[stripe]

What? I'm sorry, I was really trying. I don't know how one goes about discussing that Israel was forcibly displaced and has dealt with the ramifications of surrounding Islamic states and centuries of tension any other way. 

There have historically been strong Christian communities in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and so forth, and among Palestinians (and they are not all Arab); recent events have led many Christians to flee, to the US and Latin America, and beyond, but it is a mistake to think this is a Jewish vs. Muslim thing.

 

And Lebanon is not an "Islamic state," whatever that means. Its government has strict proportional representation of Christians and Muslims.

[poppy]

Thank you all for your comments.  I appreciate them.  I've heard several people mention it in the last few days, and it all seems to be focused on "which side are you on?"  Personally, I'm on the side of the innocent people on both sides.  We were in Israel in late 2012, and had to pass through this huge checkpoint at a fence that surrounded the whole area to get to Bethlehem.  It seemed so sad.

 

A saw a photo of Israelis in lawn chairs watching bombs hit Gaza and cheering.   The person who took the photo  was careful to say that he seen the exact same thing on the Palestinian side- cheering bombs dropping on civilians.  It isn't that Israelis are evil. It's that war is terrible.

 

I have also seen incredibly graphic photos of bombing victims- children, whole families - it's horrible. The Palestinians can't flee. There is nowhere to go. I can't imagine being in that situation with my children. I am not trying to get political here, I'm just saying that I think social media, more than anything else, is why Palestinians are winning the PR war this time. More than I've ever seen before in my 40 years on earth.  The images are getting out there because there are camera phones and easy uploads in a way that wasnt' possible in so many other civilian death cases in the past.  And of course you have Arabs and Muslims worldwide to shout about it.  I imagine those groups care about & follow the story of Palestinian families the way Christians world follow the story about Meriam Ibrahim.

[TeacherZee]

A saw a photo of Israelis in lawn chairs watching bombs hit Gaza and cheering.   The person who took the photo  was careful to say that he seen the exact same thing on the Palestinian side- cheering bombs dropping on civilians.  It isn't that Israelis are evil. It's that war is terrible.

 

I have also seen incredibly graphic photos of bombing victims- children, whole families - it's horrible. The Palestinians can't flee. There is nowhere to go. I can't imagine being in that situation with my children. I am not trying to get political here, I'm just saying that I think social media, more than anything else, is why Palestinians are winning the PR war this time. More than I've ever seen before in my 40 years on earth.  The images are getting out there because there are camera phones and easy uploads in a way that wasnt' possible in so many other civilian death cases in the past.  And of course you have Arabs and Muslims worldwide to shout about it.  I imagine those groups care about & follow the story of Palestinian families the way Christians world follow the story about Meriam Ibrahim.

This. I think many in that part of the world learned a great deal about PR/social media during the Arab spring

[Rosie_0801]

.  And of course you have Arabs and Muslims worldwide to shout about it.  I imagine those groups care about & follow the story of Palestinian families the way Christians world follow the story about Meriam Ibrahim.

 

This sent my brain off wondering how people form their loyalties. It seems a lot of American Christians are more protective of Christians outside their own country than Muslims inside it. So religion is a stronger bond than nationality? Or is it that shared religion makes a person feel they have more in common culturally, even if in reality they don't.

 

Anyway, not dissing anyone. Just pondering.

[Kate in Arabia]

The images are getting out there because there are camera phones and easy uploads in a way that wasnt' possible in so many other civilian death cases in the past.  And of course you have Arabs and Muslims worldwide to shout about it.  I imagine those groups care about & follow the story of Palestinian families the way Christians world follow the story about Meriam Ibrahim.

 

Most of the political posts on my FB page from Muslims are about Gaza; most of the political posts from Christians are about the persecution of Christians in Iraq by ISIS -- and can I just say, again maybe it is political, that I find ISIS disgusting and reprehensible.  What is going wrong with the world?

 

[umsami]

I don't negate what you're saying Kate.

 

I could go into the whole Fatah/Hamas thing…but I don't think I know enough to do it justice.

 

From my understanding (which may be flawed)…. the Gazans elected Hamas in 2006, because Fatah had been viewed as very corrupt.  They haven't been given a chance to elect anybody else since then, as far as I know.  The US refused to recognize the election, which of course made our whole "we love democracy" thing look tainted…and probably was part of the reason why we recognized Morsi in Egypt.

 

Fatah controls the West Bank (means the West Bank of the Jordan River)…. and the West in general likes dealing with Abu Mazen (President). You don't hear a lot about problems there… they don't try and attack Israelis as far as I know.  They seem to work together more.

 

But when it comes to Israel, the Palestinians are trying to be more united.  They went to the UN to be recognized, which pissed off the US and Israel, and caused us to cut a lot of aid to the Palestinians. They also reached some sort of agreement recently between Hamas and Fatah, which annoyed the US and Israel more…but in reality, would be necessary for any sort of peace deal to be reached.  

 

Fatah used to be known by the PLO.  Arafat was extremely corrupt, and a lot of Palestinians (and others) do not like the fact that his widow and daughter live very well in Paris.  But, in general, Abu Mazen is viewed as a good leader…or at least better than the alternative.

 

From my standpoint, Hamas loses out big time if there is peace.  The West (and others) prefer Abu Mazen and Fatah…so they would lose power in peace. Of course, they're not all terrorists….they're a minor political party….so I'm sure some of the bureaucrats would keep jobs, and some would be elected to the Palestinian Parliament (or whatever they call it.)  So, I actually think the agreement between Hamas and Fatah was a good one, because while Fatah seems to be working towards peace, I'm not so sure about Hamas. (But then again, if I was basically imprisoned, couldn't get in goods or send out goods like I wanted….affected medical care…. I saw children and elderly killed and beaten up or imprisoned regularly by Israel…I probably wouldn't be so nice and kind.  The Mom of the Tampa boy who was beaten so severely by the Israeli police said something along the lines of, "I now understand why the Palestinians hate Israel." )

 

 

Oh…and to be fair, Palestinians are not only treated like crap by Israel and Hamas.  They're treated like crap by other Arab countries too.  Jordan is probably the best.  Most have citizenship there.  

 

In Lebanon, "Until 2005, Palestinians were forbidden to work in over 70 jobs because they do not have Lebanese citizenship, but this was later reduced to around 20 as of 2007 after liberalization laws.^[53] In 2010, Palestinians were granted the same rights to work as other foreigners in the country.^[55]"   

^{Lebanon also forcibly expelled Palestinian Syrian refugees fleeing war there.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27292499}
 

 

Nobody really wants them.  That's part of the reason why they need their own land.  I'm also not sure how well a new country of Palestine could handle it if all of their refugees returned.

 

 

[Ravin]

Maybe it's all Putin's fault.

 

Seriously, it always seems to come back to colonialism vs. tribalism. People's true loyalties are formed by complex cultural structures including family ties, religious identity, connections to the land, political ideology, and religion.

 

Imposing political organization from without that ignores some of these factors or gives some importance disproportionate to the others results in tension, and throw in economic factors (people have to eat, etc.) and conflict arises.

[Carol in Cal.]

The only way I can think of to be unbiased is to state that borders imposed by colonial powers have a long history of creating problems.

 

Yes.  As the quote says, "The past isn't prologue.  It isn't even past."

 

[Carol in Cal.]

One of the ugliest things about the situation as it stands historically is the ethnic cleansing goal of most of the Arab nations locally--the goal being to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and ensure that no Jews remain in the Middle East.  You don't see that coming back from the other side.

[poppy]

One of the ugliest things about the situation as it stands historically is the ethnic cleansing goal of most of the Arab nations locally--the goal being to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and ensure that no Jews remain in the Middle East.  You don't see that coming back from the other side.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "historically", could you clarify? Jews have always been in the Middle East, but Israel as a nation is relatively new - younger than my parents.  

[umsami]

One of the ugliest things about the situation as it stands historically is the ethnic cleansing goal of most of the Arab nations locally--the goal being to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and ensure that no Jews remain in the Middle East.  You don't see that coming back from the other side.

 

Actually Carol, you do see that.  You just don't see that publicized  in the U.S.  https://www.facebook.com/JewishVoiceforPeace/posts/10153022141289992

 

"The website “Walla!†published talkback comments on an article about the four children killed on the Gaza beach.

Shani Moyal: “I couldn’t care less that Arab children were killed, too bad it wasn’t more. Well done to the IDF.â€

Stav Sabah: “Really, these are great pictures. They make me so happy, I want to look at them again and again.â€

Sharon Avishi: “Only four? Too bad. We hoped for more.â€

Daniela Turgeman: “Great. We need to kill all the children.â€

Chaya Hatnovich: “There isn’t a more beautiful picture than those of dead Arab children.â€

Orna Peretz: “Why only four?â€

Rachel Cohen: “I’m not for children dying in Gaza. I’m for everyone burning.â€

Tami Mashan: “As many children as possible should die.â€"

 

 

As for your statement on Arab countries, can you provide references, because I can.

1967….Egypt's Nasser accepted Israel's right to exist with UN Security Council Resolution 242

1979  Israeli/Egypt peace treaty

1988… Yasser Arafat of PLO recognized Isreal's right to exist in a "Financial Times' article

1993…letter between Arafat and Rabin " "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."  All above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist

1994…Israeli-Jordan peace treaty  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Jordan_relations

 

***1994…also important to note that the Vatican did not enter diplomatic relations w/Israel until 1994

 

2002…Arab League pushed for recognition of Israel as part of a peace deal

 

Palestinians do not, however, accept that Israel should be an exclusively Jewish state…perhaps because there are Palestinian Christian and Muslims who live there….but they do accept its right to exist.

 

​Israel and Syria have had a truce since 1974…but now…no idea what that holds. As many of said, Israel should fear ISIS far more than Hamas.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel

"Following Israel's recognition of and entering into negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) many African, Asian and even Arab countries restored diplomatic relations with Israel. The Vatican entered into diplomatic relations with Israel in 1994. Some countries broke or suspended relations as a result of the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese War and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

At present, a total of 32 United Nations member states do not recognise the State of Israel: 18 of the 22 members of the Arab League: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; a further 11 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. Other countries which do not recognise Israel include Bhutan, Cuba, and North Korea.^[13] in 2002, the Arab League proposed the recognition of Israel by Arab countries as part of the resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict in the Arab Peace Initiative."

 

This is a really, good article on what recognizing Israel's right to exist means in a Palestinian context.  http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html

 

""Recognizing Israel's right to exist," the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba â€“ the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

 

To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point."

[*Lulu*]

I actually thought SWB's explanation in SOTW4 about the situation (at it's modern start point) was the most fair and understandable I've heard.

 

(Paraphrasing here...it has been over a year since we were in vol.4)

 

It would be like living in a house for 20 years and having another family show up and say that, because their family lived there 100 years ago, they had the right to live there. Imagine being forced to move into a portion of your house and allow the other family to live there too. You would not be happy about it. Things would be tense.

 

 

(End of paraphrase)

 

When the conversation derails is when people start painting one side or the other as righteous.

 

There are no clean hands here and refusing to acknowledge that is the surest way to shut down serious discourse about how to resolve the current round of violence.

[KungFuPanda]

This sent my brain off wondering how people form their loyalties. It seems a lot of American Christians are more protective of Christians outside their own country than Muslims inside it. So religion is a stronger bond than nationality? Or is it that shared religion makes a person feel they have more in common culturally, even if in reality they don't.

 

Anyway, not dissing anyone. Just pondering.

"A lot" isn't even most. We have a huge diverse country with politics that are vastly different from region to region. The loudest, most passionate and public voices can never really represent the more common opinions that are shared in private. I live in a peaceful, diverse neighborhood. I have one neighbor summering in Lebanon and her political posts on Facebook, of the same events, are very different than those of another friend who is in Israel right now. In our 'real life' we get along and our children have been friends most of their lives. Right NOW, though, people are scrambling to take sides because giving an inch in either direction seems too dangerous to either side. It's just sad. As an American Christian, I don't feel sadder for one destroyed family over another. In most cases, the people making the big decisions aren't dying for them and their families are protected.

[Farrar]

I feel like every piece of news I see about the conflict is like a Rorshach test for where people stand.  Someone posted an image of civilians on the roof of a building in Gaza that the Israelis planned to bomb on FB the other day.  The inhabitants of the building had gone to the roof, including their children, to try and show the Israelis they were there.

 

People who were pro-Palestine were disgusted that the Israelis were going to bomb a building full of families.  Even if they gave a short term warning, there's very few places to hide with any sense of safety, they said.

 

People who were pro-Israeli were disgusted that the Palestinians were "using their children" either as potential martyrs or human shields.  How dare they purposefully move into greater danger when they could have at least tried to get out of the building, they said.

 

I think when two sides see things so radically differently and are automatically indignant at the other side - they can't even imagine anyone seeing it differently than them - then you've got a problem that's hard to solve.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

2002…Arab League pushed for recognition of Israel as part of a peace deal

 

 

The list kind of proves my point, I think.  As recently as 2002 the Arab League still had to push for recognition of Israel as part of a peace deal.

 

There is also the issue of recognition in English vs. recognition in Arabic--remember all those controversies about what Arafat would say in Arabic to his internal newspapers vs. what he would be willing to say in other languages in other countries?

 

I liked the quote you gave about 'existance' vs. 'right to exist'.  It's a good way to position the questions.  But I think there perhaps should be a third term that means something like 'we don't agree with how you came into existance, but we won't try to wipe you out'.  That's what I was poking at with 'right to exist'.

[poppy]

 

I liked the quote you gave about 'existance' vs. 'right to exist'.  It's a good way to position the questions.  But I think there perhaps should be a third term that means something like 'we don't agree with how you came into existance, but we won't try to wipe you out'.  That's what I was poking at with 'right to exist'.

 

I've often heard it said that if Palestine put down their guns, they'd get peace.  If Israel put down their guns, they'd be annihilated.  But right now, Palestine is a nation without a state, which is exactly the situation the Jews of the world found themselves in prior to the creation of Israel.   Thus the conundrum.  If the roles were reversed- if Jews were a minority being asked to put down their guns without achieving a two-state solution- they'd not accept it. And I don't think any rational party would.

[Carol in Cal.]

NOTE THAT THIS IS THE ONION, so it's satire.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/israels-hamas-disregard-for-palestinian-life-align,36531/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

[idnib]

Please don't make this political.  If you have strong beliefs either way, please be respectful, or refrain from commenting if you can't.

 

Can anyone give me a very simple and unbiased rundown of the the whole Israel/Palestine conflict that is currently going on?  I am overwhelmed when I watch or read the news, and each one had a slant to one side.  Can you please explain it?  Indy asked me, and I really can't really give him a good explanation.  I would really appreciate it.

 

 

Re-posting with the original request. Bolding is mine.

 

Not replying to anyone in particular.

[jelbe5]

I just watched this YouTube video which I thought was informative from a historical perspective. I am not sure it is completely unbiased but it might be a decent starting point. I believe the situation is more complicated than presented here. I will be curious to hear what others think of the video.

 

 

[poppy]

I just watched this YouTube video which I thought was informative from a historical perspective. I am not sure it is completely unbiased but it might be a decent starting point. I believe the situation is more complicated than presented here. I will be curious to hear what others think of the video.

 

 

That was ........a little surreal. I hope there aren't too many Americans who need to have the terms "Muslim" and "Holocaust" defined for them.

 

But I think it was pretty fair.

[idnib]

That was ........a little surreal. I hope there aren't too many Americans who need to have the terms "Muslim" and "Holocaust" defined for them.

 

 

I'm pretty sure there are.  :(

[Ravin]

I've often heard it said that if Palestine put down their guns, they'd get peace. If Israel put down their guns, they'd be annihilated. But right now, Palestine is a nation without a state, which is exactly the situation the Jews of the world found themselves in prior to the creation of Israel. Thus the conundrum. If the roles were reversed- if Jews were a minority being asked to put down their guns without achieving a two-state solution- they'd not accept it. And I don't think any rational party would.

Historically, nations have put down their guns without relinquishing their sovereignty. That happened many times in North America with native nations. The results weren't exactly what most people would call satisfactory. And given the dismal results for "domestic dependent nations" in the U.S., where the government has always at least paid lip service to either promoting self determination, or else to assimilation with full rights as citizens, I find it perfectly understandable that so many Palestinians refuse to lay down arms.

 

At the same time, I can see where the paranoia and fear of hostile neighbors on the part of Israel comes from, and why that is taken out on the Palestinian population. I wouldn't be surprised if neighboring countries encourage that just to keep Israel unstable and focused inward.

 

Peace and healing cannot take root as long as both nations are in such untenable positions. Both their own actions and their neighbors' feed the hostility.

[umsami]

There's also the issue that should a Palestinian state exist, would Israeli Arabs have to move there (be expelled from Israel)? Would they want to?

 

Granted it's a focus group of three, but I have some Israeli Arab friends and they have said that they think it would be so many years before the Palestinians got a functioning country….that why should they leave?  Yes, they don't have the same rights as Jewish Israelis, but in general, the schools, infrastructure, life, opportunities would be better in Israel than they would be in Palestine for many many years to come. 

 

Palestine would be a very poor country with all of its issues….and all the issues of a new country.

 

I've heard a lot more talk about a one state solution recently.  I can see it having benefits and disadvantages for both sides.

[umsami]

OK…now they're saying that Hamas did not kidnap the three teens.  

 

And what…800+ people have died over that?

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html

 

"Repeated inconsistencies in Israeli descriptions of the situation have sparked debate over whether Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into a confrontation. Israeli intelligence is also said to have known that the boys were dead shortly after they disappeared, but to have maintained public optimism about their safe return to beef up support from the Jewish diaspora."

[umsami]

And things like this is why I'm not the half glass full person where  this issue is concerned...

 

 

I can understand that.  And I can bet you that if you do a poll in one week, one month, three months, whenever…that 90% of Americans will still believe that Hamas kidnapped and killed the three teens, which is part of the problem.

[Rosie_0801]

I can understand that.  And I can bet you that if you do a poll in one week, one month, three months, whenever…that 90% of Americans will still believe that Hamas kidnapped and killed the three teens, which is part of the problem.

 

And not a problem that can be solved.