Israeli & Palestinian Conflict

Who is to blame for the Palestinian conflict?

  • The Jews are entirely to blame.

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • The Arabs & Palestinians are entirely to blame.

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Both are to be blamed but my sypathy goes to the Israelis.

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Both are to be blamed but my sypathy goes to the Palestinians.

    Votes: 14 46.7%
  • Both are EQUALLY responsible.

    Votes: 11 36.7%
  • I dont know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30

DoctorNO

Agnostic Thinker
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The Palestinian conflict is one that dates back hundreds of years. The land of Israel/Palestine was originally settled 3000 years ago by feuding Hebrews & Canaanites which later merged together to become the people of ancient Israel. The land was later conquered and reconquered by surrounding super powers, thus scattering the Jews throughout Europe, Africa and Arabia. Although some jews were able to remain continuously in the land. Late in the 1800s the growing persecution of jews inspired the jews to resettle back into their ancestral homeland. Which became increasingly possible with the defeat of the Ottomon empire after World War I. WWII convinced the U.N. to partition the land (almost) equally between the jews & the arabs. Although the partition was more in favor for the arabs, it was not enough to them for they expected the whole region. Thus in 1947 after the Jews proclaimed independence 7 arab armies, with the help of British training and british soldiers attacked Israel on all sides. Against all odds the jews emerged victorious and what lands the arabs willingly abandoned (to give way to arab war machine) the Israelis reclaimed. And even the arabs later declared those lands as a complete loss and gave up on it. The current conflict was mostly hinged on the 1967 war, wherein a besieged Israel launched a preemptive strike which destroyed all the armies surrounding it, also allowing Israel to occupy the remaining Palestinian lands. Later wars of 1972 and 1979 hardened Israel?s stand to occupy these lands as a form of self-defense or so they say. Palestinians since then had resorted to terrorist plots. And the conflict persists today. An endless cycle of revenge.

What do you think about this issue?
 
Here In The State Of Maine...

we have a summer camp called "THE SEEDS OF PEACE".
Every summer it brings teen agers from both sides
to show they can live togeather in peace some day if they work at it. It's a great program, and when they interview
the kids, it seems to be helping them understand how to
make a better future for themselves.
It must be horrible to live somewhere surrounded by
death & destruction; never feeling safe!

Frank
:(
 
I Wasn't Too Clear On That !

noyhauser said:
you run this Frank?

No, my church supports it and a friends son is going to be a counselor their this summer! I always wonder how the kids handle the peer presure & family presure to return to hateing back home?

Frank
 
Kinda hard to say overall who we should blame going back more than a century -- I'm more interested in what the Palestinians right now are thinking with the leveling off of suicide bombings over the last few months, the wall going up along the border as well as talk of an Israeli pullout of Gaza and of course continuing violence in the hunt for militants :(. Media reports are few and far between, so any news is welcome.
 
Last edited:
read my long essay in the other thread. It explains what is going on now with the wall and the US's position
 
DoctorNO said:
The land of Israel/Palestine was originally settled 3000 years ago by feuding Hebrews & Canaanites which later merged together to become the people of ancient Israel.
Hmm, I remember the story slightly different: the Canaanites were already there, then the Israelites came & conquered parts of the land.


WWII convinced the U.N. to partition the land (almost) equally between the jews & the arabs. Although the partition was more in favor for the arabs, it was not enough to them for they expected the whole region.
Almost equally? Hmm, ~1,2 m Palestinians were supposed to get 43.53 % of the land, while ~600,000 Jews would have got 56.47 %. That's what you call in favour of the Arabs?


Thus in 1947 after the Jews proclaimed independence 7 arab armies, with the help of British training and british soldiers attacked Israel on all sides.
You talk of 1948, I suppose?
Well, 1st Jewish "clearing" operations against Palestinian villages started in December 1947. The beginning of 1948 saw several skirmishes initiated by both sides. War broke out on May, 15, 1948, one day after the declaration of the state of Israel.
Which sources do you have that British soldiers fought on Arab side against Israel?
Don't know about the Arabs, but what you forget to mention is that the Jews were partly British trained as well.


Against all odds the jews emerged victorious and what lands the arabs willingly abandoned (to give way to arab war machine) the Israelis reclaimed.
Willingly abandoned? Hmm, what about the "clearing" operations? What with the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April? What about other Israeli atrocities?
There may have been Arab leaders urging people to leave, but for a great part the Palestines fled for fear of the Israelis, not in order to give Arab armies room to manoeuvre.


And even the arabs later declared those lands as a complete loss and gave up on it.
Even if so (the Arabs, who exactly?), that doesn't take away the right of return for the refugees.
 
I saw an NHK Special about it not too long ago, and it seems that the US only shows one side of it, which is not surprising. All we see are supposed suicide bombings done by the Palestinians to the Israelis. In this special I saw, they were showing how the Israelis do just as much bombing of the Palestinians, if not more.

It's interesting to see how subjects like this are shown from a different country's point of view sometimes. Makes you want to question what we're always fed...or at least, it should.
 
Im going to say this once, because afterwards I don't want to discuss this issue because inevitably it just gets to the point where I have to defend one side which is not my intention.

I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process. I'll often post essays on the subject and read some of the responses but I will almost never engage in debate. I've done extensive work in the field, authoring a 30 page paper on the subject using a wide range of sources from both sides. Im almost sure I've heard most arguments thrown up justifying both sides. I love reading and discussing the subject however the dogged thinking of some people dismays and sickens me, enough to make me not discuss it at all except to people who are open minded. There is so much poor press and skewed perspectives in the conflict that the truth is often buried within rhetoric.

When I do write about this issue in a constructive sense, I attempted to start with the idea of removing the idea of blame from the conflict. Blame is a powerful tool because it is used to justify the current state of affairs. This is how most people in the conflict think. The palestinians attacked us, or the Jews killed my nephew. remember Jenin, remember the Oceanside bombing. It just perpetuates conflict. If you remove the idea of blame all you are left with the question, what do you really want? Most will say security and access to prosperity. Those goals that can be worked to.

Beyond the masses there are the extremists who point to a higher calling for justification for their actions and these must be acknowledged, and dealt with. For every Hamas individual advocating the death of all Jews, there is a Ultra Orthdox jew who believes that eretz israel should exist. These individuals must be ignored and marginalized because if they aren't, then peace will never be achieved.

As a political analyst I look to what do both sides want in order to achieve peace. What I see is that both sides must make big compromises. Both sides must quit antagonizing each other. Right of return will never happen, and Arabs must accept that Israel has a right to exist, which has not happened. Israel must stop incursions, and dismantle the most egregious settlements, and recognize a palestinian state. There are others but I'm not going to list them because that is not the point of my post.

Is peace possible in our time?I think so. Camp David, Taba and Plan Clinton Came very close. The roadmap is another step. Given time I think both sides will become weary of conflict.

Frank D. White said:
No, my church supports it and a friends son is going to be a counselor their this summer! I always wonder how the kids handle the peer presure & family presure to return to hateing back home?

Frank


Wow frank. I think the next generation will finally be able to see peace. I think the older ones aren't able, like the Sharons and Arafats. They belong in a different age, and the younger generations will see alternatives than the constant tit for tat warfare and uninspired peace negotiations.
 
noyhauser said:
I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process.
[...]
Right of return will never happen, and Arabs must accept that Israel has a right to exist, which has not happened. Israel must stop incursions, and dismantle the most egregious settlements, and recognize a palestinian state. There are others but I'm not going to list them because that is not the point of my post.

Well, I agree with most of what you wrote, Noyhauser. Just these 2 points above I have a certain problem with.

What I pointed out in my post is history, nothing more, nothing less (or did you see any mistakes? If so, say it & I will do a little more research). I'm not blaming the Israelis for anything. Neither do I support the Palestinians in everything.

I support the right of the refugees to return, though.
I agree, that it's pretty improbable that this right will be implemented, but it's their right nevertheless. If they are not allowed to return, they need to be compensated otherwise.
 
Right of return won't happen, and it is not the issue the international media makes it out to be. According to Last Summers issue of international security, really less than 15% of refugees want to go back, if given some sort of compensation. Part of the problem is that it has been used by Arab regimes as a sort of panecea for their refugees ills, which it is not. And you know that the israeli state won't accept its population being swamped by refugees that bear a hostility to the people existing within the state.

Im not going to get into a spitting match about your earlier post. Again it will just push me to support Israel when I am not. The only one I will say (because it is a clear cut issue) is that a large portion of Israel's land is the Negev desert, which is nominally unihabitable.
 
A spitting match? Very funny.
Sometimes you write excellent essays (just a bit lengthy), then again you come up with such strange stuff as above.

"Again it will just push me to support Israel when I am not."
Well, I am not really indicting Israel, am I? So, what's the big deal?

Re: right of return
Can't see any contradiction in what you say to what I said.

Re: Negev
True, but at the same time the Jews should have got some of nicest slices in the West/North West. Can't really say that they were discriminated against.

You should not try to read things into my words that are not there! I am not anti-Israel (though I'm definitely anti-Sharon).
 
Spitting match is a common (north american? Canadian? english?) term meaning a drawn out dirty verbal fight, which is something I do not want to be involved in. Maybe a few months ago, but in the last few months I've become tired of getting into fights. Like the right of return argument, I could say something more, but Im not interested.

That said I'm done with the issue.
 
noyhauser said:
Im going to say this once, because afterwards I don't want to discuss this issue because inevitably it just gets to the point where I have to defend one side which is not my intention.

I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process. .

If you don't want to discuss the issue, then why did you post anything in the first place?

I think it is absurd to say Bossel's post was the first step in the process of 'polarizing' the debate. Surely Doctorno's extremely one-sided and erroneous original depiction of events (not to mention the poll seeking to attribute blame for the conflict) was the beginning of that. It seemed clear to me that Bossel was just trying to clear up some misconceptions.
 
senseiman said:
If you don't want to discuss the issue, then why did you post anything in the first place?

I think it is absurd to say Bossel's post was the first step in the process of 'polarizing' the debate. Surely Doctorno's extremely one-sided and erroneous original depiction of events (not to mention the poll seeking to attribute blame for the conflict) was the beginning of that. It seemed clear to me that Bossel was just trying to clear up some misconceptions.

Because I want to mark out a position, maybe offer something for people to think about. What I would like to discuss is effectively contemporary peacemaking. However very few people understand the what that entails and revert to old frameworks of viewing the conflict utilizing historical statements such as "resolution 242 says" ect. So in my experience, I just don't participate in these subjects after making my position clear.
 
noyhauser said:
Because I want to mark out a position, maybe offer something for people to think about. What I would like to discuss is effectively contemporary peacemaking. However very few people understand the what that entails and revert to old frameworks of viewing the conflict utilizing historical statements such as "resolution 242 says" ect. So in my experience, I just don't participate in these subjects after making my position clear.

Fair enough, I guess. It just doesn't seem very sporting of you to preface your first post by saying "I don't want to talk about this so I'll only post once" and then going on to single out Bossel's post for criticism which is of course just inviting a rebuttal and so on.

I also don't see what is so wrong with quoting documents like resolution 242, especially given that the whole peace process is based on the principles laid out in 242 and 348. Seems pretty relevant to me.

Anyway, for what its worth I think for a peace agreement to work the Israelis are going to have to withdraw from most of the settlements in the West Bank and all of the settlements in Gaza. Its not realistic to expect Israel to grant a right of return to all Palestinian refugees (though from a moral standpoint they certainly should be entitled to one). It is reasonable to expect that a limited program of repatriation for some (perhaps those with relatives already living in Israel) and financial compensation for others should be enacted. The issue of Jerusalem is a sticky subject but I think the Israelis are going to have to allow the capital of a Palestinian state to be established in the eastern quarter of the city.

Unfortunately peace simply isn't going to happen so long as Sharon is in power in Israel and Bush (who probably couldn't find Israel on a map) is in office in Washington. Sharon's power base is too dependent on the support of militant right wing fringe groups and Bush simply doesn't give a shit about middle east peace. This stupid wall, which is built entirely on Palestinian land, isn't helping things much. It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.
 
It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.
Although is Israeli targeting of Palestinian leaders along with the occasional street fighting/Palestinian gunman shooting at police or settlers pretty much the extent of the killing going on now ? It may not be peace, but it sounds rather contained in terms of actual casualties.
 
senseiman said:
Fair enough, I guess. It just doesn't seem very sporting of you to preface your first post by saying "I don't want to talk about this so I'll only post once" and then going on to single out Bossel's post for criticism which is of course just inviting a rebuttal and so on.

Nope your right. But you have to understand this is not a passing interest for me, this is my job and my career. I look at my desk right now and there are 12 books/journals on the subject. I research and write on these subjects daily, and to be honest, I don't like debating against unresearched opinions, especially when it people believe they are absolutely right on their position. I do debate these issues; if I see someone that has devoted significant time to work in the field, or has a personal stake in the conflict, Im usually eager to listen to them. Thats why Frank's post interested me, because that is a unique vantage point, dealing with children from the environment. I am not however interested in hearing from someone who is reading about it second or third hand source, because I've heard it before.

Getting most of you information for the guardian and BBC is not a "researched opinion." Reading from Journal of Conflict Resolution, Haretz Daily, the Jerusalem Post, the Al Jazeera english news service, Survival, Foreign Affairs, Intenrnational security ect, is a researched opinion. Thats not to say I know everything on the topic or my contentions are correct. I would never claim to be so crass. But I have progressed to the point where I have read most arguments, and understand the nature of the conflict from multiple viewpoints. Thats why I'd rather post essays on the subject and not debate, because people can read them and think about what I have to say. I have no problems answering questions about them either. But I would rather not engage in debate.


senseiman said:
Unfortunately peace simply isn't going to happen so long as Sharon is in power in Israel and Bush (who probably couldn't find Israel on a map) is in office in Washington. Sharon's power base is too dependent on the support of militant right wing fringe groups and Bush simply doesn't give a shit about middle east peace. This stupid wall, which is built entirely on Palestinian land, isn't helping things much. It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.

I don't know if you have read my draft essay that I posted. It explains the strategic mindset of the Sharon government. It was not edited so mind the grammar please.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8525
 
The violence today isnt as much political, or religious, as it is a cultural tradition.

It would 'disgrace thy forefathers, and soil the bloodshed by thee' to stop the violence now and establish true peace.

Just look at the most popular Jewish holiday. It celebrates victory in a war long gone. So its obvious that war isnt so much politically, or religiously driven so much as it is tradition.
 
noyhauser said:
I don't like debating against unresearched opinions, especially when it people believe they are absolutely right on their position.
Now you hit some nerve, guy! Unresearched opinions?
Believe to be absolutely right? :kaioken: Not me, anyway.
I was talking about history, not about the news or current diplomatic affairs. If you think that the facts are different, then state what you see as factual & I will do some more research.


Getting most of you information for the guardian and BBC is not a "researched opinion."
I never read The Guardian. The BBC is a secondary/tertiary source, but generally pretty reliable.


Reading from Journal of Conflict Resolution, Haretz Daily, the Jerusalem Post, the Al Jazeera english news service, Survival, Foreign Affairs, Intenrnational security ect, is a researched opinion.
Great history sources, really! That makes a researched opinion then.
 

This thread has been viewed 22810 times.

Back
Top